July 2, 2015
I was going to ask this in the "full head voice below A4" thread, but it seems like I can't post there(?) so I'll create a new topic: what exactly was prime Geoff Tate (pre-Mindcrime) doing in terms of M1/M2?
TVS was the first program I got/used, and like many here I increased my range but I really never figured out how to get M2 sounding like M1/beefier when I "bridged" (I'm going to use quotation marks since a lot of terms like bridging, head voice etc don't actually exist/are in contention) at like E4 or F4. Like I could sing WELL up to approaching my 6th octave but anything at the bridge and above just sounded like non-airy falsetto to my ears. Once I started practicing with stretching chest/feeling like I didn't bridge until ~C5 or later I seemed to actually develop power/a good sound through my upper 4th octave into the 5th.
But it seems like many here say that the Pillars style would be a "how to sing like Geoff Tate/Michael Kiske" method, so how did Geoff manage to develop this so well? Like I know a lot here say that it seems there's a split in the general population if this style sounds good/could work if you went on American Idol singing this way etc, but I think most non-singing nerds (unlike us ) would agree that Geoff back in the day sounded very impressive.
So did he just put in the years it takes to get good at this style, compared to the much quicker gains you see when you "stretch chest/sing in your full voice well into the 5th octave"? Or does he just have optimum genetics, like maybe his face shape, resonant cavitites etc were just made for the lighter mass/M2 dominant singing?
September 2, 2014
My own views now are that he mostly stayed in m1 actually and just had really good head resonance and used less mass back in the day. So just a proper mix voice really. He may have brigded earlier to m2 but you can't hear a transition point so it was a good spot for him at the time. One things for sure as he got older he used more mass and you can hear it's clearly m1 but I think he lost some range too.
Four pillars doesn't really teach a specific sound anymore, lately it tries to cover everything so this point of it being a method for that sound is kind of moot anyways.
Btw you can't be "m2 dominant" it's black and white - one or the other. m1 means the body of the vocal folds is involved in vibration whether it's more or less mass. This accounts for full voice and mixed voice depending on how much fold mass you use. M2 means you've let go in are in falsetto/head voice and there's no chest. You can disguise a transition between the two by making the shift with matched cord closure and tone in each but the higher you make that the smoother it is. The takeaway point its very ineffective to bring m2 down low like g4s etc and try to "make" it full and "make" it bridge smoothly with chest because theres no real body to the sound in that mode avaulable to "make" it sound beefier - the body of the fold you get in m1 is what provides it. Geoffs sound you can hear some body even in the high stuff so it's pretty easy for me to speculate he's really mostly in m1 properly
It's not genetics, it almost never is. it's also not a different "setup" it's just another variation on the fundamental principles of great singing
July 2, 2015
September 2, 2014
Cool. Let us know how you like Phil's program. I take lessons with him regularly and was thinking of buying the program too just to have a secondary resource. I am on a tight budget though so I'm holding off for now because I would need the regular lessons anyways...I'm just that type of student. But I do put a lot of trust in Phil's ability to make his program function a lot like specialized lessons so I'm curious how you feel about it in a few months!
Yea I wish this forum was less dead...really great community here when people speak up, but alas, we are all busy actually singing and living life the other 95% of the time, unlike some other forum junkies LOL!
August 19, 2014
Hey Owen thanks for the reply, I didn't realize til later that the last post by anybody had been like 2 months so I just assumed my question would never get answered haha.
I did invest in Phil's new program so I'm guessing all the "great fundamentals of singing" will become clear to me
to be honest there's nothing really special about Geoff Tate's ability to sing in a light mixed voice. Anyone can do it and you are going to learn how in the course you got.
Simply learning how to sing properly and then you choosing to sing like that is how you do it. He didn't sing in a falsetto that was "disguised" as full voice though, he was actually properly in a full voice - a mix when he sang - it was just thin that's all.
Learning how to sing in a thinner full voice is about first laying the foundation with a strong chest. If you don't first learn to do this then the "overlap" or middle part of the voice is weak and over time the voice can become unstable.
Once the foundation is laid you can then work on using the help of consonant sounds ala SLS to work as a crutch which will help the cords stay together allowing you to relax into the sound and get into a thinner tone rather than feeling like you have to belt through everything.
"cord closure & mixed voice" section in my course will teach you this.
Once this is consistent then you work on trying to achieve the same thing on vowels only.
many rock singers are used to spreading into the sound which adds weigh to the tone, so I recommend being able to sing in mixed voice all the way up on all vowels with the mouth forming a very small OH. If you can sing all the way up with very little movement in the face then it means your voice is good at thinning out, then you can bring back the wide "rock smile" and add back the weight.
Most Users Ever Online: 46
Currently Browsing this Page:
Adam Mishan: 84
Sexy Beast: 60
daniel formica: 59
Slow Start: 34
Guest Posters: 0
Newest Members:ForTheLoveOfMusic, Matt Ramsey, OP1793, Harrison, Montana, Violet, s.l.wolf, MusicalGearSurvey, JuliaMJ, Phoenix
Administrators: Marnell Sample: 45, Phil Moufarrege: 264, Felipe Carvalho: 117