TMV Partners

You are not logged in.


Announcement

GO HERE: www.TheModernVocalistWorld.com

ATTENTION TMV WORLD FORUM MEMBERS! YOU NEED TO GO LOGIN AND/OR REGISTER AT THE NEW AND IMPROVED TMV WORLD FORUM SYSTEM.



CLICK THIS LINK TO GO TO THE NEW FORUM. WHEN YOU ARRIVE AT THE NEW FORUM, LOGIN OR REGISTER AND THEN CLICK ON "GETTING STARTED". ALL OF THE POSTS AND TOPICS HAVE BEEN MIGRATED OVER AND EXISTING MEMBERS WILL BE LINKED BACK TO ALL THEIR POSTS IN THE NEW SYSTEM AFTER YOU LOGIN.

www.TheModernVocalistWorld.com

IF YOU ARE A NEW VISITOR THAT JUST JOINED US, YOU ARE INVITED TO COME OVER TO OUR NEW FORUM SYSTEM. CLICK THIS LINK TO GO THERE AND REGISTER.

www.TheModernVocalistWorld.com

Adverts

#51 2014-05-04 09:05:15

Khassera
TMV Forum Member
From: Oulu, Finland
Registered: 2013-08-02
Posts: 347
Reputation :   

Re: KTVA VS 4pillars VS CVI

Danielformica wrote:

Light weight or heavy weight it's up to you the term speech level singing has nothing to do with it. Sls is just the position of the larynx

Woooot

I thought speech level singing is exactly what the words mean: Singing with a speech level volume, or being able to keep the same vocal quality throughout your range without going overboard with volume. Or that's how I've practice all the drills that are from those schools: supporting just enough to close the cords, keeping the volume down (almost to be laughably low) and using the position of the larynx to keep the tonal quality, since some higher passages might coax a high larynx.

But I guess I was wrong in this too. :) Not a day wasted reading TMV!


"'Means are many' said the hag as she wiped the table with a cat."

Offline

 

2014-05-04 09:05:15

AdBot
Advertisements

#52 2014-05-04 11:37:46

ronws
TMV Forum Member
Registered: 2010-05-23
Posts: 11731
Reputation :   139 

Re: KTVA VS 4pillars VS CVI

Owen Korzec wrote:

I recently came up with this new little mantra I think is totally true:

Speak like you sing, so that you can sing like you speak.

Of course it's an oversimplification but that's the general concept - your speaking technique needs to support your singing technique - holding the same placement, tonal characteristics, and efficiency of production, or else you will have to feel a great change when you go to sing and that adjustment will always feel difficult.

I like that and I think it is a large reason why some people need extensive warm-up before singing. Because speaking and singing were so vastly different and long warm-ups got them in "singer" mode.


"When the daylight is rising up in my eyes ..." - Klaus Meine

Offline

 

#53 2014-05-04 11:51:02

Khassera
TMV Forum Member
From: Oulu, Finland
Registered: 2013-08-02
Posts: 347
Reputation :   

Re: KTVA VS 4pillars VS CVI

I can sing for hours, but if I speak for 10 minutes at normal volume my voice gets tired and shot.

Sometimes i try to place the voice as if i was singing when I talk. It feels funny but it doesn't tire my voice. Sounds a lot smoother too. Problem is that my native tongue doesn't really "live" like english or italian, so keeping support for a monotonous tone is really counterintuitive.


"'Means are many' said the hag as she wiped the table with a cat."

Offline

 

#54 2014-05-04 14:58:06

ronws
TMV Forum Member
Registered: 2010-05-23
Posts: 11731
Reputation :   139 

Re: KTVA VS 4pillars VS CVI

Steven Fraser had covered resonant speaking 4 years ago, I think, and probably a number of times before that.

Essentially, take the things you learn from singing and apply them to speaking. This does mean that you may not speak as low as you are used to speaking. But it will take a load off the folds. Public speakers use this all the time. They might be speaking non-stop for an hour or more.

Another advantage, I think, of resonant speaking, which I do try to follow, as well, is that the voice stays a little warm. And has endurance.

My job has me on the phone all day, talking with the bosses much of the day. So, I let my voice float where it is going to go. Low, high, whatever.


"When the daylight is rising up in my eyes ..." - Klaus Meine

Offline

 

#55 2014-05-04 15:00:13

Robert Lunte
TMV World Forum - Founder
From: Earth
Registered: 2008-11-08
Posts: 3087
Reputation :   55 
Website

Re: KTVA VS 4pillars VS CVI

Danielformica wrote:

In regards to "speech level singing" it was only meant to mean the movement of the larynx. I am not a practioner of sls but I know from personal experience from just speaking/and learning from  Seth and some of his teachers.

Daniel this is a really good point.  Your absolutely right about that, something I have known for a long time. When Seth created the very catchy term, "Speech Level Singing", he did NOT mean, you sing in a physical and acoustic configuration consistent with speech mode!  Seth doesn't know anything about vocal modes and their physiologies. He was only trying to communicate the idea that when you sing, you don't have to push. The message in the "SLS" catch phrase really was only suppose to mean, "... when you are singing, your voice can remain comfortable and not be pushy, similar to speech".  THAT is the context Seth was intending... NOT, what his teachers and the marketing went on to try to say, "... when you sing you should use your voice in the same physiology as if you were speaking".

Unfortunately, that is precisely what hundreds of SLS teachers and other countless "sing like you speak" rip-offs that have no original ideas of their own, have done. It is not only completely erroneous in regards to how you should really train the voice, but it isn't even the original meaning of what Seth intended.  Is so damn maddening... and yet fortunes are being made on programs that sell a HUGE misunderstanding about how great singing works, full of content that is attempting to train you to do something that isn't even going to work. You and I both know, in regards to consumers, students and even teachers that have spent their careers drinking the "sing like you speak" cool-aid,... its a bit of a tragedy to wake up one day and realize, you have been sold and teaching something for years that is almost completely wrong.

Thanks for pointing that out. I think in some regards, Seth Riggs gets a bad rap because of that and its not really his doing...

Offline

 

#56 2014-05-04 16:19:42

FelipeCarvalho
TMV Forum Member
From: Brasil
Registered: 2011-07-28
Posts: 2889
Reputation :   61 
Website

Re: KTVA VS 4pillars VS CVI

Speech Level simply means not in operatic projection. Its still quite loud. Loud as calling someone thats far for example.

Offline

 

#57 2014-05-04 16:44:58

Robert Lunte
TMV World Forum - Founder
From: Earth
Registered: 2008-11-08
Posts: 3087
Reputation :   55 
Website

Re: KTVA VS 4pillars VS CVI

I disagree, that is not what it means. Its original intent is as described in my previous post. Its confused meaning that has become popularized by some teachers for the benefit of creating a compelling story, ".... that the singing voice can feel and be as easy as the speaking voice", to get more students is also described above in my previous post.

"Operatic Projection" is an arbitrary, open-ended term that could mean a lot of different things. Most accurately, that term would probably mean, "The experience of singing and listening to the voice as it phonates opera vocal mode or the style of opera singing".  Not sure what that has to do with "sing like you speak" people implying to consumers that you can sing with the same physiology and acoustics of speech? 

But its Sunday morning, and it really doesn't matter... but I thought I would challenge Felipe a little bit...

Offline

 

#58 2014-05-05 14:17:09

FelipeCarvalho
TMV Forum Member
From: Brasil
Registered: 2011-07-28
Posts: 2889
Reputation :   61 
Website

Re: KTVA VS 4pillars VS CVI

"Operatic Projection" is an arbitrary, open-ended term that could mean a lot of different things. Most accurately, that term would probably mean, "The experience of singing and listening to the voice as it phonates opera vocal mode or the style of opera singing".  Not sure what that has to do with "sing like you speak" people implying to consumers that you can sing with the same physiology and acoustics of speech? 

I meant the loudness required in Opera, which is the reason why the "opera vocal mode" is used. With a mic its possible to sacrifice a bit of resonance to obtain a more coloquial quality. And thats the idea of SLS, technique is the same. Seth Riggs placed a label on it, but it existed before anyways.

If you get in details then all the differences regarding larynx height, and so on...

Im not really arguing against what was said, my point is exactly that its not as quiet as people may assume and, I agree with you, most surely can not be speech LIKE.

Offline

 

#59 2014-05-05 16:56:36

Robert Lunte
TMV World Forum - Founder
From: Earth
Registered: 2008-11-08
Posts: 3087
Reputation :   55 
Website

Re: KTVA VS 4pillars VS CVI

Thanks Felipe, good response.

Offline

 

#60 2014-05-08 13:50:24

joshual
TMV Forum Member
From: Toulouse, France
Registered: 2009-01-23
Posts: 426
Reputation :   
Website

Re: KTVA VS 4pillars VS CVI

Robert Lunte wrote:

Jushau, honestly... "all systems" are NOT good... some are just garbage.  However, "The Four Pillars of Singing", CVI and Ken's product are all good...  I'm just saying... :cool:

yes, exactly what i was saying ;-)

Offline

 

#61 2014-05-17 16:33:22

Khassera
TMV Forum Member
From: Oulu, Finland
Registered: 2013-08-02
Posts: 347
Reputation :   

Re: KTVA VS 4pillars VS CVI

One question that's probably going net some really ambiguous answers, and although I probably know what the main gist of the answers will be, I'll shoot:

KTVA feels like a lot of work physically. I've worked with it for about half a year or so, and it feels like a lot of work physically. Singing Success felt very low effort-wise, and now that I've dabbled with it now and then I really have gotten the hang of what the exercises should feel like, and they've really helped me with some aspects of the voice. With that said I always thought that SS approached singing with as little effort as possible, and although KTVA begins with the same thing, belting with a large portion of chest resonance feels like a lot of work.

Now the question:

I've watched and listened to Robert singing, and I've watched and listened to his students. Same thing with Tamplin and with Manning. I've noticed a distinct difference in the projection, and I gotta ask (Robert, if you see this I'd love your input):

Do you advocate belting with little effort? I watched your onset workout video from youtube and tried them out. They felt very easy to do, very little support in comparison to the KTVA workouts, but the result was pretty much the same. I dunno if it was the exercise, but I really felt it very low effort/tension.

I dunno, I guess I've lost the balance and I sing just about everything from high and loud to low and soft with the same support, and it's tiring as hell. I guess I've got good stamina for it, but if I could make things easier I would.

tl;dr: Does the 4 pillars aim for effortless belting? Is there such a thing, or is it always supposed to feel as if someone is about to whack your belly with a baseball bat?

Last edited by Khassera (2014-05-17 16:38:32)


"'Means are many' said the hag as she wiped the table with a cat."

Offline

 

#62 2014-05-17 18:04:14

MDEW
TMV Forum Member
Registered: 2012-06-24
Posts: 2866
Reputation :   32 

Re: KTVA VS 4pillars VS CVI

I have just found something new for me. I do not know whether it is support or appoggio as Tenelli describes but the more pressure you use the harder it is to phonate. If you think you need a lot of pressure to sing that note you will use a lot of pressure and it will be that much harder to control it. The high notes should not need any more "Work" than the low notes. Try singing with same amount of pressure in the high notes as you are with the lower notes and see what happens.


"Knock me down, It's all in vain. I'll get right back on my feet again."  Pat Benatar

Offline

 

#63 2014-05-17 18:45:33

Khassera
TMV Forum Member
From: Oulu, Finland
Registered: 2013-08-02
Posts: 347
Reputation :   

Re: KTVA VS 4pillars VS CVI

MDEW wrote:

Try singing with same amount of pressure in the high notes as you are with the lower notes and see what happens.

That's exactly what I'm doing and it's the reason I'm wondering if there's a better way to do it. The way some people sing (I won't mention names because that'd just get people flamed up) they sound great while at the same time they sound very loose and low effort. Like they aren't really trying. I know it's a matter of great technique, but my question was: Is there such a thing as effortless "belting?" I know belting is also a subjective term.

But, say, Michael Kiske doesn't sound like he's really straining half as much as.. Say... Dickinson. Dickinson doesn't sound loose, he sounds like his voice is backed up by tons and tons of support. Kiske sounds like he's doing some sort of balancing act that doesn't really sound like a lot of tensing is going on. This latter thing is what I'm aiming for, and I have no idea how to go about achieving it.

To compare the two singers I mentioned

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mSXIncNMlx8

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZO6giM9UAv0

Kiske sounds "Airy" or loose, and Dickinson sounds tight and strainy (but not bad by any means). Maybe I'm confusing bright tone with straining.

Last edited by Khassera (2014-05-17 18:48:28)


"'Means are many' said the hag as she wiped the table with a cat."

Offline

 

#64 2014-05-17 19:20:53

Danielformica
TMV Forum Member
From: San Luis Obispo
Registered: 2011-08-10
Posts: 1552
Reputation :   62 
Website

Re: KTVA VS 4pillars VS CVI

Hey guys this is what Ive been trying to explain for a while. Singing is very counterintuitive. As you ascend you don't give more effort as you will always have to give more and more and at some point you cap out. You just keep a consistent flow and sound and let the folds decrease in mass and vibrate on the edges and the resonance increase.:)


DANIEL
WWW.YOURVOCALTEACHER.COM
WWW.DANIELFORMICAVOCALSTUDIO.COM
www.soundcloud.com/daniel-formica

Disclaimer-Anything I write or try to help people with on here are techniques and things that have worked for ME.  They are not necessarily" right" or "wrong" but have worked for ME and my 20+ yrs as a professional working
singer.
Thank you

Offline

 

#65 2014-05-17 22:31:54

VIDEOHERE
Administrator
Registered: 2008-12-22
Posts: 7197
Reputation :   66 

Re: KTVA VS 4pillars VS CVI

khassera,

the effort you describe....where are you feeling the effort most...in the lower core?

it will get stronger and feel easier in time. yes, chesty belting can be very demanding at times.  bob

Offline

 

#66 2014-05-17 23:50:27

geno
TMV Forum Member
Registered: 2009-10-30
Posts: 2059
Reputation :   53 

Re: KTVA VS 4pillars VS CVI

Khassera - I can relate to what you're saying as I spent a couple years with the KTVA approach and gained most of my high range via those exercises.  It does get increasingly easier to sing high.  But his method reminded me of my Operatic teachers who by would teach the passagio with lots of support and singing loudly - at first - and then backing down later. 

However the other approach like  Lunte's "bridging early", or Seth Riggs SLS and what Daniel has been advocating seem to be what I was missing with KTVA.  I've been taking that kind of approach for the last year and it is paying off big time.  I can still sing very loud, but with the least amount of effort.  One thing I noticed is with that approach, my vibrato is much more free up high.  If you are "pressing" too much the vibrato gets comprimised.  Also, there is a LOT LESS Fatigue.  You can sing high much longer.  It's almost like you don't get tired anymore.

Offline

 

#67 2014-05-18 03:27:37

Khassera
TMV Forum Member
From: Oulu, Finland
Registered: 2013-08-02
Posts: 347
Reputation :   

Re: KTVA VS 4pillars VS CVI

geno wrote:

Khassera - I can relate to what you're saying as I spent a couple years with the KTVA approach and gained most of my high range via those exercises.  It does get increasingly easier to sing high.  But his method reminded me of my Operatic teachers who by would teach the passagio with lots of support and singing loudly - at first - and then backing down later. 

However the other approach like  Lunte's "bridging early", or Seth Riggs SLS and what Daniel has been advocating seem to be what I was missing with KTVA.  I've been taking that kind of approach for the last year and it is paying off big time.  I can still sing very loud, but with the least amount of effort.  One thing I noticed is with that approach, my vibrato is much more free up high.  If you are "pressing" too much the vibrato gets comprimised.  Also, there is a LOT LESS Fatigue.  You can sing high much longer.  It's almost like you don't get tired anymore.

Thanks for the input, I was kinda hoping yu would answer since I recall you spoke about training sith both systems in some other discussion. :)

That's what I felt after adding some Mastering Mix into my workouts: My vibrato and agility have gotten much better without losing the tonal quality.


"'Means are many' said the hag as she wiped the table with a cat."

Offline

 

#68 2014-05-18 04:39:08

Robert Lunte
TMV World Forum - Founder
From: Earth
Registered: 2008-11-08
Posts: 3087
Reputation :   55 
Website

Re: KTVA VS 4pillars VS CVI

Khassera wrote:

One question that's probably going net some really ambiguous answers, and although I probably know what the main gist of the answers will be, I'll shoot:

KTVA feels like a lot of work physically. I've worked with it for about half a year or so, and it feels like a lot of work physically. Singing Success felt very low effort-wise, and now that I've dabbled with it now and then I really have gotten the hang of what the exercises should feel like, and they've really helped me with some aspects of the voice. With that said I always thought that SS approached singing with as little effort as possible, and although KTVA begins with the same thing, belting with a large portion of chest resonance feels like a lot of work.

Now the question:

I've watched and listened to Robert singing, and I've watched and listened to his students. Same thing with Tamplin and with Manning. I've noticed a distinct difference in the projection, and I gotta ask (Robert, if you see this I'd love your input):

Do you advocate belting with little effort? I watched your onset workout video from youtube and tried them out. They felt very easy to do, very little support in comparison to the KTVA workouts, but the result was pretty much the same. I dunno if it was the exercise, but I really felt it very low effort/tension.

I dunno, I guess I've lost the balance and I sing just about everything from high and loud to low and soft with the same support, and it's tiring as hell. I guess I've got good stamina for it, but if I could make things easier I would.

tl;dr: Does the 4 pillars aim for effortless belting? Is there such a thing, or is it always supposed to feel as if someone is about to whack your belly with a baseball bat?

Hey guys... I just completed 40 hours of training for a new TVS teacher in Paris. He was here in Seattle... and then Im tracking in the studio right now. Burning candles at both ends, but I know this is an important topic and such. Just now able to get here. About a year ago, I did a video about "Late Bridging vs Early Bridging" that attempts to clarify what this is really about and express my personal feelings about it, first start by watching this.



I will start by saying, I have a lot of respect for Ken for all the right reasons. His resume, experience and strong voice for singing. His videos are fun to watch. He is a great teacher, one of the best on the scene today for sure. Having given him credit where credit is due, I will now attempt to be tactfully frank about my feelings on this matter.

As my video points out, I have always been concerned about the "late bridging" idea because I feel that it is very risky for new students and beginners. I understand and agree with Ken that if you don't work the musculature, you can experience a kind of atrophy, there is some truth to that, but I think Ken exaggerates a bit and makes it sound scarier then necessary. Regardless of the merits regarding the need to work the musculature for singing to get better, instructing customers and beginning level students to PURPOSELY delay vowel modifications and INTENTIONALLY pull chest voice as high as you can go for a kind of... resistance training approach is concerning. It is concerning for the simple fact that, beginning students are not equipped, nor have the coordination and experience to understand what musculature to pull and which ones to not. I find it puzzling that the very thing that 9 out of 10 people are hoping to eliminate when they invest in these programs, seems to be the very thing KTVA advises them to do?  It just seems like students need to ramp up and prepare for that level of resistance training before they immediately charge into it. Maybe I'm misunderstanding Ken's approach on some details here, but this is what I have learned through discussions with students that have tried it and other voice teachers that understand his approach. Im concerned that most customers are just not prepared or able to do this and are just getting heavy and more pushy. No one can deny that Ken is a great singer and very, very physically strong, but ... he's push'n in those videos. It sounds good, but it is what he is telling people to do... and I just come away feeling concerned.

Now, having said that... He is dead right about needing to work the musculature and sometimes needing to work it super hard, my only concern... and I will say, the ONLY point where I think Ken and I may be at odds is... how you go about introducing that kind of resistance training to your customers. I believe there should be other skills that need to be developed first for most people and that bridging on lighter mass phonations should NOT be discouraged!  As my video points out, you guys should all be learning how to train "light mass" bridging and "heavy mass" bridging techniques.  (notice, Im going to call this light mass vs heavy mass... instead of associating it with time... it has nothing to do with time, it is all about musculature engagement, less about time)... but referring to it as "late bridging" creates potential confusion... for a lot of 'noobs' that will translate to 'push' and 'pull chest'.

I advocate that you get a set of techniques that can enable you to train with lighter and heavier mass musculature. The way you do this is with Specialized Onsets that are used to isolate and work certain key muscle groups. You also have to have understanding about vowels; which ones to modify into and which ones to modify out of. With my product, "The Four Pillars of Singing", we have developed 8 Specialized Onsets, four of them are used to strengthen your musculature for 'heavy mass' bridging and four are used to help you train light mass bridging. As of late, we are now also offering TVS Acoustic Modes (similar to CVI modes, but with some changes) and new vowel modification formulas. The Vowel modification formulas are tabled and are used to help you decide what kind of musculature you want to train and develop. Its not just "sing Ah high"... there is a lot of "Ah" formulas, but we work with other vowels that are equally important.  I created tables of resonant vowel formulas that make bridging smooth and another table of resistant vowel formulas that are used to work the muscles. If you want to train light mass or "early bridging" AND heavy mass or "late bridging", "The Four Pillars of Singing" offers you BOTH!  TVS IS NOT ONLY just a "light mass" or "early bridging" solution... we have a complete set of "late bridging" or "heavy mass bridging" techniques and routines. I have made it my objective to insure that anyone that buys "Pillars" has techniques for BOTH solutions... its in there and you can train all the "Ah" vowels you want, until your blue in the face and when your done with that, you have 6 other key training vowels to begin working on as well. We now have Acoustic Mode Vowel Training Formulas. 

If you want to work on "heavier mass" phonations, train the TVS Edging Formulas.

If you want to 'lighter mass" phonations, train the TVS Curbing Formulas.

If you want to just train "Ah" all day until the sun sets, train our "Ah" oriented Neutral formulas. *


( * TVS Neutral is not the same as CVI Neutral. CVI's open glottis, Neutral configuration seems rather pointless to me?  Windy phonations are important, but there is just not a lot to say about them in regards to training.... When we say "Neutral Acoustic Mode" at TVS, we are referring to the resonant energy being centered and 'neutralized' in the vocal tract. The new TVS Acoustic Modes account for where acoustic energy is placed, with the vowel primarily).


When you see and hear me sing, most of my phonations are light to medium in their mass... when I record, I will "pull" more, similar to Ken, but for my artistic taste, I like my voice to sound and feel more "floaty". I like the feeling of the formant shifting inside my head with no musculature gripping me. I like the beauty of the harmonics a lighter phonation can give you and I love the way a light phonation will amplify because of the harmonic balance, instead of heavy phonations that feel like Im slapping water.

Khassa, I understand where your coming from and your concern has merit. I encourage you to learn about both approaches, and get your hands on content that gives you tools to train both approaches... but yes, lighter mass phonations are sweet angels that keep giving... heavy phonations, may sound cool, but there is a price to pay... for some people that try that approach early on, they pay the price before they even get started. Later they ask themselves why they are still pushing after months of training?

I hope this is helpful...  and one last remark on behalf of Ken. I feel I have a lot more in common with Ken then not. Ken and I both want the same things for our students and fundamentals regarding our approaches are on the same page. Ken and I share a common lineage as we both trained with the late Maestro David Kyle in Seattle, WA (Geoff Tate, Layne Staley, Chris Cornell, Ann Wilson, Ronnie Monroe, Ken, me, others... ). This is why we both are big on spending a lot of focus on getting through the passaggio and building something meaningful in the head voice. One of the best things about Ken in my view is, he has challenged everyone, especially his colleagues to step up and sing more. I "get it"... now with that said, I need to actually track some vocals for a new tune.

Good night guys...

Offline

 

#69 2014-05-18 05:24:21

Robert Lunte
TMV World Forum - Founder
From: Earth
Registered: 2008-11-08
Posts: 3087
Reputation :   55 
Website

Re: KTVA VS 4pillars VS CVI

Phil Moufarrege wrote:

Ken has singers work lightly all the way up until the VERY END of stage 2 of his 3 stage program.  Once the singer is able to blend the passagio smoothly on a light level it is only then that they are encouraged to add weight into the sound and push that bridging point off as late as possible unless the singer does not desire that heavy sound.  For those singers, they can just take it at the weight they choose to sing with.  all of this is covered in his course extensively.

For those who want the ability to do both, they work on stretching the chest as high as possible and then come back later on and work on strengthening the headvoice down low into the range as low as possible.

Phil, thanks for that explanation. If the routine advocates light mass configurations early on to get connected and coordinated, that sounds like a good idea to me.

Phil I saw some of your videos and I enjoy watching. Keep up the great work...

Offline

 

#70 2014-05-18 13:09:34

liyunjyun
TMV Forum Member
Registered: 2014-05-18
Posts: 11
Reputation :   

Re: KTVA VS 4pillars VS CVI

I remember even in KTVA VOL1,Ken encourage people to stretch chest as far as possible before handing off to head vocie.
A random guy like me does get confuse with words like streching chest without straining.
So i just let go the voice weight,not thinking about streching chest too much.

I suppose KTVA's streching chest=streching mid voice(or a beefier head voice sound)
Pulling chest up to A4 Bb4 or C5 with ease seem to be imposible for most male ,at least for me.

Just saying from Asia

Last edited by liyunjyun (2014-05-18 13:10:32)

Offline

 

#71 2014-05-18 14:04:02

Robert Lunte
TMV World Forum - Founder
From: Earth
Registered: 2008-11-08
Posts: 3087
Reputation :   55 
Website

Re: KTVA VS 4pillars VS CVI

People like Liyunjyun are who I am working with every day on Skype... I'm just saying... based on experience and knowing what the capabilities and profiles are for many students, its going to create confusion and some concern. Again, let me reiterate. I'm not saying that working heavier mass bridges is wrong. I'm only expressing my concern that for some folks, they are just going to get confused and only make their pushing problems worse.

I have heard and seen that there is an idea that encourages you to delay the modification of the vowel and 'pull' the chest musculature as high as you can. What Liyunjyun is saying, pretty much confirms what I understood from others and what limited information I have seen myself. On the other hand, I believe Phil when he tells me that there is a light mass preliminary approach in the first 2 phases.  Like I said, if that is in there, it would seem that could be helpful... but only you guys that have worked the program can confirm.

One thing I know from my formant studies with Maestro Fraser and Dr. Donald Miller's book "Resonance in Singing", if you delay your vowel modifications, you will begin to feel 'push back' on the voice. The reason for this is the harmonic energy in the formant is out of alignment. When the harmonic energy in the formant is out of alignment, it creates 'feedback' in the vocal tract and a kind of symmetry or balance is lost in regards to the harmonic energy, vocal track and frequency. This is the cause of most chest pulling problems. The physical resistance you feel when you are pulling chest is only a symptom of harmonic energy out of alignment in your formant. Now, can this be used for resistance training to grow stronger?  I believe it probably can, this is one reason why I developed the "Resistance Training Vowel Modification Formulas" and four Specialized Onsets in "The Four Pillars of Singing"... but again, this is more advanced stuff that beginners and new people should not be messing with in my opinion. BTW guys... even more then training techniques, the best way to get strong  musculature for singing is to... sing. Sing a lot, be in a band, go on tours, sing every night in front of an audience or in your studio, but sing, sing, sing... Students and colleagues that actually sing a lot in their gigs get very strong. One reason why Ken is so very strong, the guy has been singing night after night for many years. He is not the typical profile of someone that buys these products. To be able to sing all those songs like he does is EXTREMELY rare. It takes years and years of musculature development, experience with those songs and some God given gift to do that... Most people are never going to be able to do what Ken does.  I'm not dissing on Ken, Im paying him a compliment. But we ( the teachers ) have to not forget that most people buying our products are not people like Ken, Rob, Daniel and Phil... its guys like Liyunjyun.

Regardless, I think Khassa's original point is really valid... at the end of the day, heavy mass bridging is not the only muscle memory you want to develop. It changes the sound color. You never want to say, "... I only want to be a late bridging singer".  Thats absurd and sounds like you have been sold on the idea that 'late bridging' is the only goal. I don't know who is leading some people to think they have to make a choice, but its just wrong. You don't have to make a choice, you need to learn about and train both ideas. You want to be able to bridge a different masses, with different vowels for different styles and sound colors.  That is the end game. I would not want my ONLY attractor state (muscle memory) to be a heavy mass, configuration.  You have to understand the 'mechanics' and be able to do both.

Offline

 

#72 2014-05-18 16:15:22

Danielformica
TMV Forum Member
From: San Luis Obispo
Registered: 2011-08-10
Posts: 1552
Reputation :   62 
Website

Re: KTVA VS 4pillars VS CVI

In my experience everybody is different so start to darken or modify your vowels a note or two before the point in your voice that's starts to pull or feel strained. Everyone will be different some people at E4 some at Eb4 some at F#4 etc. it's different for everyone. Then once you got the hang of it you can start to modify the vowel back to its original shade, which would be heavier sounding for example ah to uh to ou(book). Then after getting this down without flipping or cracking or pulling start changing the ou back to an ah or uh. It will sound more natural and heavier.
Vowels will help you find the right direction to go in, and each vowel will sit a little different depending on the pitch and the intensity you sing it at. Sitting into a sound (heavier)will come in time with more control.


DANIEL
WWW.YOURVOCALTEACHER.COM
WWW.DANIELFORMICAVOCALSTUDIO.COM
www.soundcloud.com/daniel-formica

Disclaimer-Anything I write or try to help people with on here are techniques and things that have worked for ME.  They are not necessarily" right" or "wrong" but have worked for ME and my 20+ yrs as a professional working
singer.
Thank you

Offline

 

#73 2014-05-18 18:11:26

Owen Korzec
TMV Forum Member
Registered: 2011-09-18
Posts: 3109
Reputation :   78 
Website

Re: KTVA VS 4pillars VS CVI

Robert Lunte wrote:

One thing I know from my formant studies with Maestro Fraser and Dr. Donald Miller's book "Resonance in Singing", if you delay your vowel modifications, you will begin to feel 'push back' on the voice. The reason for this is the harmonic energy in the formant is out of alignment. When the harmonic energy in the formant is out of alignment, it creates 'feedback' in the vocal tract and a kind of symmetry or balance is lost in regards to the harmonic energy, vocal track and frequency. This is the cause of most chest pulling problems. The physical resistance you feel when you are pulling chest is only a symptom of harmonic energy out of alignment in your formant.

This is very interesting and new information to me - I'd love to hear Phil or Ken's thoughts on this if they understand the talk-track...

Just to throw in a different perspective, it has been more my experience that a lot of my issues came from modifying too early through little bad embouchure or throat shaping ticks which can cause a clunky bridge faster than you can snap your fingers. When you get rid of those - get a consistent "bite", dropped jaw, open throat tongue, etc. it's one of the thing that has really smoothed out my bridging. But I think that's more of a physiology thing. And as a result, the formant shifting might end up higher because you're now doing it out of necessity and properly timed rather than out of arbitrary habit. Based on watching a lot of videos of Phil's students and how he helps them open up the throat I think a lot of that closing down stuff starts BELOW the passaggio and is one of the many reasons why some beginners can't get through it or feel a need to bridge earlier than what would actually be natural for them.

But that's only to bring students away from modifying too early toward modifying on time. Just wanted to note there is perhaps an equal danger of modifying too early - when you're doing it for no reason other than because tensions are forcing it on you.

Now after those "ticks" are fixed, intentionally modifying even later, is new to me so I can't really speak of it until I really figure it out. So far it sometimes feels a bit difficult but it's not supposed to be, I'm sure of that. I don't know if Ken is this way too but Phil is very big on making sure the effort level is low and the strain is out, even if we're trying to roll in more chest, so anything that would cause that "push back" feeling I'm sure he would not let me suffer through. Or perhaps if I got that feeling Phil would tell me a way to fix it, e.g. added support or whatever.

You're probably right that it is a more effortful approach though. But when done correctly, probably only effortful on the respiratory system. Otherwise it would be incorrect technique. And as I am aware of KTVA, they are big on making sure the effort is "down there" and not in the neck. Of course, Estillians would love to argue that veins popping all over the neck is just effective "anchoring" and not harmful or uneconomical, but the overwhelming amount of pedagogy that teaches the exact opposite, KTVA included, is far more convincing to me.

Last edited by Owen Korzec (2014-05-18 18:12:47)

Offline

 

#74 2014-05-18 18:24:03

Danielformica
TMV Forum Member
From: San Luis Obispo
Registered: 2011-08-10
Posts: 1552
Reputation :   62 
Website

Re: KTVA VS 4pillars VS CVI

Here's one for ya just practice getting the vowel in book all the way through your range then you don't have to modify. Once you get that in line starting popping the other vowels in that position(throat,vocal tract )whatever term floats your boat this week.
The talk of this stuff should have been brought up early in your training. I wonder why you question and speak of it now many moons later. You need to know why you are modifying and where to with your voice and vowel your working.

Basics basics basics that's what's important.

Last edited by Danielformica (2014-05-18 18:27:43)


DANIEL
WWW.YOURVOCALTEACHER.COM
WWW.DANIELFORMICAVOCALSTUDIO.COM
www.soundcloud.com/daniel-formica

Disclaimer-Anything I write or try to help people with on here are techniques and things that have worked for ME.  They are not necessarily" right" or "wrong" but have worked for ME and my 20+ yrs as a professional working
singer.
Thank you

Offline

 

#75 2014-05-18 18:32:57

geno
TMV Forum Member
Registered: 2009-10-30
Posts: 2059
Reputation :   53 

Re: KTVA VS 4pillars VS CVI

I sense some confusion where people are thinking Bridging is the same as Modifying vowels.

1) The point at which Vowel Modification occurs is based on where a person's natural formants lie.  These frequencies don't really change - but they are different per individual.

2) Bridging is the point at which the CT starts stretching the folds - or when you enter mix/head voice.  With KTVA I learned to delay this up to Bb4 if I wanted.  However, I was modifying the vowels way earlier - for example - Ah for me modifies to Uh at around E4. 

You have a lot of latitude on where you can enter the mix/head voice (CT dominance).  I can move this point below C4 or delay it up to Bb4.  But you don't have latitude on where you need to modify - this is an individual thing depending on where your natural formants are.

Last edited by geno (2014-05-18 18:36:23)

Offline

 

#76 2014-05-18 18:45:44

Danielformica
TMV Forum Member
From: San Luis Obispo
Registered: 2011-08-10
Posts: 1552
Reputation :   62 
Website

Re: KTVA VS 4pillars VS CVI

Ct always stretches the folds to get to pitch. And yeah it's very individual

Last edited by Danielformica (2014-05-18 18:46:50)


DANIEL
WWW.YOURVOCALTEACHER.COM
WWW.DANIELFORMICAVOCALSTUDIO.COM
www.soundcloud.com/daniel-formica

Disclaimer-Anything I write or try to help people with on here are techniques and things that have worked for ME.  They are not necessarily" right" or "wrong" but have worked for ME and my 20+ yrs as a professional working
singer.
Thank you

Offline

 

#77 2014-05-18 19:05:17

geno
TMV Forum Member
Registered: 2009-10-30
Posts: 2059
Reputation :   53 

Re: KTVA VS 4pillars VS CVI

I was referring to "head voice" as defined by NCVS.  The point at which CT is dominant - you have a lot of latitude in  moving that point

http://i687.photobucket.com/albums/vv239/guitartrek/Registers.png

Offline

 

#78 2014-05-18 20:46:42

Owen Korzec
TMV Forum Member
Registered: 2011-09-18
Posts: 3109
Reputation :   78 
Website

Re: KTVA VS 4pillars VS CVI

geno wrote:

I sense some confusion where people are thinking Bridging is the same as Modifying vowels.

1) The point at which Vowel Modification occurs is based on where a person's natural formants lie.  These frequencies don't really change - but they are different per individual.

2) Bridging is the point at which the CT starts stretching the folds - or when you enter mix/head voice.  With KTVA I learned to delay this up to Bb4 if I wanted.  However, I was modifying the vowels way earlier - for example - Ah for me modifies to Uh at around E4. 

You have a lot of latitude on where you can enter the mix/head voice (CT dominance).  I can move this point below C4 or delay it up to Bb4.  But you don't have latitude on where you need to modify - this is an individual thing depending on where your natural formants are.

Thats interesting. What Phil is teaching me and what Ive seen Ken talking about in his videos teaching students, is definitely modifying later AND bridging later. I also remember a forum post of someone clarifying that KTVA teaches modifying late but not bridging late. So now we have three conflicting interpretations oh boy!

I would agree with you though that the CT/TA shifting is much more adjustable than the formant shifting. But you can change the formant shifting a bit as you can change larynx height etc.

Last edited by Owen Korzec (2014-05-18 20:48:06)

Offline

 

#79 2014-05-18 21:24:24

geno
TMV Forum Member
Registered: 2009-10-30
Posts: 2059
Reputation :   53 

Re: KTVA VS 4pillars VS CVI

Owen - I sensed that it was confusing from your previous post and that's why I jumped in.  I have all 3 of Ken's videos - and spent serious practice time with all of them.  For example his modifying on "ah" is very specific around E4 - not adjustable.    But he advocates again and again to "bring chest up as far as you can before handing it off to head voice".  In one of his first chest to head bridging exercises he does say that "sometimes you need to start really light" - and he demonstrates bridging really lightly.  And then he goes on to suggest that "over time try to bring chest further up".  Bottom line is that Ken treats Modifying totally different than bridging chest to head. 

Again I credit him for helping me gain my head voice and high range.  He is a very talented singer / musician.

Remember the vowel formants have to be adjusted based on frequencies of the fundamental and their harmonics.  You start moving the first formant when it approaches one of the harmonics, otherwise it can totally fall out and it affects impedance.  If you move them appropriately you get the "cushioning" that Steven Fraser talks about which helps the impedance.

If you really want to know Ken's methods buy Ken's first video - he gets into all of this in the first video.

Last edited by geno (2014-05-18 21:30:18)

Offline

 

#80 2014-05-18 21:36:05

Robert Lunte
TMV World Forum - Founder
From: Earth
Registered: 2008-11-08
Posts: 3087
Reputation :   55 
Website

Re: KTVA VS 4pillars VS CVI

So cutting to the chase, its quite clear that Ken is advocating bridging late in some form or capacity in his program. I have heard this for years. I see it as nothing more then Ken's version of 'resistance' training for voice, which is a good idea. I do it as well with vowel modification formulas and specialized onsets in "The Four Pillars of Singing", the only concern is how and when that kind of thing is introduced. The risk is that raw beginners that have no experience could very quickly be sucked into a frustrating and confusing experience marked by constriction and pushing, merely because they are not ready to be working with these ideas. 

Geez... I have students that can't even compress their vocal folds, can't match pitch, can't hold a decent embouchure for more then 10 seconds, can't dampen their larynx... these people are NOT in the profile to be delaying vowel modifications in the formant and pulling on belt musculature?!  I don't how to say this any more clearly... its probably great for me, great for Phil, probably ok for Owen at this point, but not for most people that are buying these products.  There are other foundations that need to be built first.

Offline

 

#81 2014-05-19 00:39:35

liyunjyun
TMV Forum Member
Registered: 2014-05-18
Posts: 11
Reputation :   

Re: KTVA VS 4pillars VS CVI

Ken does say something like,in the beginning modify vowel really early as E4, once you warm up your voice or someday your voice has change,you might start to modify vowel later as F4 F#4 in Vol 1.
I think maybe it's about vocal placement issue.
Seem like if I place my voice really high(more girly,lighter) intentionally ,I can modify vowel later without problems.

To me KTVA is a solid program,too.I build my mid voice really fast(about 4 months).
But i think one problem which lies in KTVA is Ken rarely define words like chest voice,mid voice.
And this cause some problems in my local fellows who i recommand to use KTVA because they have preconceived ideas what chest voice is and can't bridge smoothy.

Just to be clear,Ken demonstrate pulling chest up high won't end well in some of his bonus video.
To me that's what people call chest voice in my country where many teachers tend to use SLS method.

I should shut my (*auto edit*) up right now through.:cool:
I always get  great answer from  Daniel geno Robert's post.
and learn a lot from Owen geran who always asking smart questions.

cheer up

Last edited by liyunjyun (2014-05-19 00:44:26)

Offline

 

#82 2014-05-19 00:59:52

geno
TMV Forum Member
Registered: 2009-10-30
Posts: 2059
Reputation :   53 

Re: KTVA VS 4pillars VS CVI

liyunjyun wrote:

Ken does say something like,in the beginning modify vowel really early as E4, once you warm up your voice or someday your voice has change,you might start to modify vowel later as F4 F#4 in Vol 1.

You'll have to point out where he says that.  Even so, it is a relatively narrow range where that can be adjusted - different than bridging into head.  Modifying really depends on the voice type and the natural formants.  Basses for example may have to start modifying around C4.

But there is confusion out there - Seth Riggs equates Modifying with going into Head at E4.  I'm working with some of his exercises now and that's what he says.  So many different definitions of head that it's hard for anyone to agree on.  That's why I keep bringing up the NCVS definitions - I like them the best.

Offline

 

#83 2014-05-19 03:06:37

Owen Korzec
TMV Forum Member
Registered: 2011-09-18
Posts: 3109
Reputation :   78 
Website

Re: KTVA VS 4pillars VS CVI

Phil Moufarrege wrote:

Ken wants people to focus on strengthening the chest mechanism FIRST, and I wholeheartedly subscribe to this approach also.  THEN (and this is NOT after a few months training) he has you work DOWN the headvoice DOWN into the chest register as low as possible and strengthen the headvoice by itself so that you can choose to bridge earlier if desired.

Don't you mean not before a few months training? Or are you talking about the very beginning of the training like when you had me strengthen the chest a bit before mixing

Offline

 

#84 2014-05-19 03:09:04

Danielformica
TMV Forum Member
From: San Luis Obispo
Registered: 2011-08-10
Posts: 1552
Reputation :   62 
Website

Re: KTVA VS 4pillars VS CVI

The problem with all this talk of modifying is you don't have to modify certain vowels so if you are intuitive you can learn for that alone that's partly how I taught myself after all the lessons and books I started thinking straight and not going around the issues.


DANIEL
WWW.YOURVOCALTEACHER.COM
WWW.DANIELFORMICAVOCALSTUDIO.COM
www.soundcloud.com/daniel-formica

Disclaimer-Anything I write or try to help people with on here are techniques and things that have worked for ME.  They are not necessarily" right" or "wrong" but have worked for ME and my 20+ yrs as a professional working
singer.
Thank you

Offline

 

#85 2014-05-19 03:25:25

Xamedhi
TMV Forum Member
Registered: 2013-08-04
Posts: 423
Reputation :   

Re: KTVA VS 4pillars VS CVI

Danielformica wrote:

The problem with all this talk of modifying is you don't have to modify certain vowels so if you are intuitive you can learn for that alone that's partly how I taught myself after all the lessons and books I started thinking straight and not going around the issues.

I agree with Daniel here. I think intuition is very strong, and if it is easier for you to make a chesty A4 with an AH, an EH or an UH, well, that's it then. Whatever makes your singing easier, more powerful ( if that's your desire ), less demanding and whatnot. It's really very personal.

   For me, personally, modifying vowels, on loud volumes and mid-high range a bit towards an UH-OH, takes quite a bit of effort and makes the sound a bit darker, which I like. If I do vowels too spread like an AH my jaw tenses, because my bite is not very big and it is quite weird for me to maintain the mouth in that position. For example when training strength on my medium range, when I need to do very heavy phonations I prefer the EH, because it helps me twang without losing the dark, raised palate position that I like.

Last edited by Xamedhi (2014-05-19 17:07:15)

Offline

 

#86 2014-05-19 12:30:14

geno
TMV Forum Member
Registered: 2009-10-30
Posts: 2059
Reputation :   53 

Re: KTVA VS 4pillars VS CVI

Phil Moufarrege wrote:

Ken wants people to focus on strengthening the chest mechanism FIRST, and I wholeheartedly subscribe to this approach also.

Exactly.  This is the same as the classical teachers I had as a kid.  We worked on vowel modifications around Eb4 and it was all in chest.  Once I was modifying correctly I could bring chest up to Ab4. Getting into head was a different story.

Offline

 

#87 2014-05-19 12:31:46

geno
TMV Forum Member
Registered: 2009-10-30
Posts: 2059
Reputation :   53 

Re: KTVA VS 4pillars VS CVI

Danielformica wrote:

The problem with all this talk of modifying is you don't have to modify certain vowels so if you are intuitive you can learn for that alone that's partly how I taught myself after all the lessons and books I started thinking straight and not going around the issues.

That's right - vowel modification is different for different vowels.  I can take an "eh" from C4 to C5 and not change anything.

Offline

 

#88 2014-05-19 12:52:39

Martin H
TMV Forum Member
Registered: 2008-11-25
Posts: 1186
Reputation :   31 

Re: KTVA VS 4pillars VS CVI

In regards to vowel modifications I believe it's important to be aware of the acoustic overload principle. It's not really so much about the vowel sound and it's formants etc. But mostly about the shape of the upper vocal tract that this vowel creates. For instance the EH and OH vowel creates the largest opening in the upper vocal tract and therefore more sound can pass through hence the possibility to create the loudest sounds.

Another example is the AH vowel. Most people and actually also a lot of teachers consider this to be an open vowel (which is true in phonetics; IPA) but physiologically it's actually not creating an "open throat" (the upper vocal tract is quite closed) and hence not as much sound can pass through as in EH or OH.

My point is, in this example, you'll never be able to sing as loud on AH as on EH or OH. Which is also why AH is usually modified towards OH the higher you sing. Understanding this acoustic principle is crucial but unfortunately only a few teachers know about it, at least directly. Which IMO is very evident in the fact that a lot of teachers like to use this AH vowel a lot.

Last edited by Martin H (2014-05-19 13:22:24)

Offline

 

#89 2014-05-19 13:17:15

benny82
TMV Forum Member
From: Germany
Registered: 2012-12-02
Posts: 645
Reputation :   17 

Re: KTVA VS 4pillars VS CVI

Yes, singing an AH vowel with an open throat is one of the challenges that really gets you to understand the feeling of "open throat". Because AH is naturally only open at the mouth, but narrow in the pharynx and has high natural compression (closed in the area of the glottis).

The whole thing is very confusing because there are different definitions where something has to be "open" for the vowel to be considered open.

AH is an open vowel in phonetics because the major factor in phonetics is the mouth opening. EH and OH have their major opening in the area of the pharynx. A vowel like OO for example has the most opening in the glottis area (lowest compression/twang).

So its pretty much a definition thing concerning "open". I have also heard a lot of teachers say that OO is an "open throat" vowel and what they mean is actually that the compression is low. In the pharynx and mouth opening OO is actually a narrow vowel.

Offline

 

#90 2014-05-19 13:37:10

Martin H
TMV Forum Member
Registered: 2008-11-25
Posts: 1186
Reputation :   31 

Re: KTVA VS 4pillars VS CVI

Benny,

I definitely agree that in regards to "open" it's a matter of definition. Though, I would like to point out that I'm only referring to the upper vocal tract (pharynx, oral). What happens in the larynx and epilarynx is a whole other ballgame. ;)

Last edited by Martin H (2014-05-19 13:38:54)

Offline

 

#91 2014-05-19 13:40:02

Owen Korzec
TMV Forum Member
Registered: 2011-09-18
Posts: 3109
Reputation :   78 
Website

Re: KTVA VS 4pillars VS CVI

Martin H wrote:

In regards to vowel modifications I believe it's important to be aware of the acoustic overload principle. It's not really so much about the vowel sound and it's formants etc. But mostly about the shape of the upper vocal tract that this vowel creates. For instance the EH and OH vowel creates the largest opening in the upper vocal tract and therefore more sound can pass through hence the possibility to create the loudest sounds.

Another example is the AH vowel. Most people and actually also a lot of teachers consider this to be an open vowel (which is true in phonetics; IPA) but physiologically it's actually not creating an "open throat" (the upper vocal tract is quite closed) and hence not as much sound can pass through as in EH or OH.

My point is, in this example, you'll never be able to sing as loud on AH as on EH or OH. Which is also why AH is usually modified towards OH the higher you sing. Understanding this acoustic principle is crucial but unfortunately only a few teachers know about it, at least directly. Which IMO is very evident in the fact that a lot of teachers like to use this AH vowel a lot.

martin, with this OH, can it be unrounded?

I've never had a teacher encourage me to do an oh with rounded lips, but the unrounded variant "Uh" (the upside down V in the IPA) is a common vowel modification - is that similar to the OH you're talking about?

Offline

 

#92 2014-05-19 13:50:22

Martin H
TMV Forum Member
Registered: 2008-11-25
Posts: 1186
Reputation :   31 

Re: KTVA VS 4pillars VS CVI

Owen,

Yes the OH can also be unrounded.

I'm referring to the OH as in "GO" :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mid_back_rounded_vowel

Offline

 

#93 2014-05-19 14:02:50

benny82
TMV Forum Member
From: Germany
Registered: 2012-12-02
Posts: 645
Reputation :   17 

Re: KTVA VS 4pillars VS CVI

Martin H wrote:

Benny,

I definitely agree that in regards to "open" it's a matter of definition. Though, I would like to point out that I'm only referring to the upper vocal tract (pharynx, oral). What happens in the larynx and epilarynx is a whole other ballgame. ;)

Yes true. I just wanted to point out that some teachers even consider vowels like OO as "open", which has mainly to do with the compression levels around the larynx.

Offline

 

#94 2014-05-19 14:07:41

benny82
TMV Forum Member
From: Germany
Registered: 2012-12-02
Posts: 645
Reputation :   17 

Re: KTVA VS 4pillars VS CVI

To sing an unrounded OH, just try to sing an OH through the mouth shape of an UH.

When singing loud in the high range you will always have these shadings between OH/UH/EH, because OH and EH are the vowels that give you the space in the pharynx and UH is the vowel that gives you the formant placement (because of its high 1st formant). Around C5 this starts to not work anymore because your formant is moving away and you have to fully modify towards UH (which makes you more quiet/lighter).

In CVT this is reflected by the neccessity to bridge away from Overdrive at C5. UH will lead you into Curbing. The alternatives are a generally lowered volume/backing off (neutral) or a much stronger twang (which replaces the lost "energy" from the formant and leads into edge).

Last edited by benny82 (2014-05-19 14:09:41)

Offline

 

#95 2014-05-19 14:08:37

Martin H
TMV Forum Member
Registered: 2008-11-25
Posts: 1186
Reputation :   31 

Re: KTVA VS 4pillars VS CVI

Benny,

Yes, I agree, the OO is sometimes considered "open" as well. :)

Last edited by Martin H (2014-05-19 14:11:13)

Offline

 

#96 2014-05-19 14:14:20

Owen Korzec
TMV Forum Member
Registered: 2011-09-18
Posts: 3109
Reputation :   78 
Website

Re: KTVA VS 4pillars VS CVI

Martin H wrote:

Owen,

Yes the OH can also be unrounded.

I'm referring to the OH as in "GO" :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mid_back_rounded_vowel

Okay cool, so would you say any of those mid-vowels are equally suitable for this loudest vocal tract position?

Offline

 

#97 2014-05-19 14:23:09

Martin H
TMV Forum Member
Registered: 2008-11-25
Posts: 1186
Reputation :   31 

Re: KTVA VS 4pillars VS CVI

Owen,

Not exactly. When you begin to close the mouth on the rounded vowels you once again run into troubles in regards to acoustic overloading. EH and OH are your best choice. :)

Offline

 

#98 2014-05-19 15:47:29

Robert Lunte
TMV World Forum - Founder
From: Earth
Registered: 2008-11-08
Posts: 3087
Reputation :   55 
Website

Re: KTVA VS 4pillars VS CVI

Martin H wrote:

In regards to vowel modifications I believe it's important to be aware of the acoustic overload principle. It's not really so much about the vowel sound and it's formants etc. But mostly about the shape of the upper vocal tract that this vowel creates. For instance the EH and OH vowel creates the largest opening in the upper vocal tract and therefore more sound can pass through hence the possibility to create the loudest sounds.

Another example is the AH vowel. Most people and actually also a lot of teachers consider this to be an open vowel (which is true in phonetics; IPA) but physiologically it's actually not creating an "open throat" (the upper vocal tract is quite closed) and hence not as much sound can pass through as in EH or OH.

My point is, in this example, you'll never be able to sing as loud on AH as on EH or OH. Which is also why AH is usually modified towards OH the higher you sing. Understanding this acoustic principle is crucial but unfortunately only a few teachers know about it, at least directly. Which IMO is very evident in the fact that a lot of teachers like to use this AH vowel a lot.

EXCELLENT! 

I have to agree, I see a lot of emphasis on "Ah" training and I think that has value, but to call it an "open" vowel... ?  No. My physical experience of "Ah" is a closed feeling. Its not open, free and windy like "Eh", or "Ae" or "Uh" vowels... it pulls and tugs and is quite clunky until you train it. Regardless, its not an open vowel.

Offline

 

#99 2014-05-19 15:49:16

Robert Lunte
TMV World Forum - Founder
From: Earth
Registered: 2008-11-08
Posts: 3087
Reputation :   55 
Website

Re: KTVA VS 4pillars VS CVI

Owen Korzec wrote:

Martin H wrote:

In regards to vowel modifications I believe it's important to be aware of the acoustic overload principle. It's not really so much about the vowel sound and it's formants etc. But mostly about the shape of the upper vocal tract that this vowel creates. For instance the EH and OH vowel creates the largest opening in the upper vocal tract and therefore more sound can pass through hence the possibility to create the loudest sounds.

Another example is the AH vowel. Most people and actually also a lot of teachers consider this to be an open vowel (which is true in phonetics; IPA) but physiologically it's actually not creating an "open throat" (the upper vocal tract is quite closed) and hence not as much sound can pass through as in EH or OH.

My point is, in this example, you'll never be able to sing as loud on AH as on EH or OH. Which is also why AH is usually modified towards OH the higher you sing. Understanding this acoustic principle is crucial but unfortunately only a few teachers know about it, at least directly. Which IMO is very evident in the fact that a lot of teachers like to use this AH vowel a lot.

martin, with this OH, can it be unrounded?

I've never had a teacher encourage me to do an oh with rounded lips, but the unrounded variant "Uh" (the upside down V in the IPA) is a common vowel modification - is that similar to the OH you're talking about?

Yes, and nobody would or should advocate you sing an "Oh" like a language "Oh" vowel... "Oh" in singing is a lot more open... its similar to an "Ah" and has teeth in the embouchure. What these guys are suggesting is straight on.

Offline

 

#100 2014-05-19 16:44:29

Martin H
TMV Forum Member
Registered: 2008-11-25
Posts: 1186
Reputation :   31 

Re: KTVA VS 4pillars VS CVI

Yes, the OH is most often sung with an unrounded mouth. Especially when sung powerfully:



2:22

(Notice how "you" is modified to "y-oh")

Last edited by Martin H (2014-05-19 16:45:58)

Offline

 
OTHER TMV WEB SITES: TMV RECOMMENDS: TMV RECOMMENDS: TMV RECOMMENDS:

Adverts

Board footer

Powered by FluxBB
Hosted by PunBB-Hosting