Log In
Forum
Topic RSS
11:18 pm
September 3, 2014
Offline
Well Martin, I dont agree its all personal choices.
In fact our personal choices are very limited if you think about it. We follow melody, rhythm, we have the language the lyrics is written into, the style, etc. You can't just personalize everything.
What Dan is saying will result in a more natural sounding, ballanced quality, where the energy in the harmonic spectra is more or less the same, varying a bit with the vowels of course.
It IS cultural, but its not just an individual thing.
Do you not agree that doing so results in a more "natural" quality. Natural in relation to the expectation of the audience. Natural in relation to the culture. Do you not agree that if we control the intensity level so that it does not go so high, we can retain MORE of the vowel quality and keep more of our individual traces present?
Not the only way, but surely you see it does "make sense".
All in all, I think that Dan was mentioning that the bridges used on the learning process do not refer to the change of registers, same thing we were saying anyways.
Felipe Carvalho
Singer and Voice Teacher in Brasil - São Paulo
11:05 am
September 6, 2014
Offline
@Felipe
I agree, of course we are limited by the building blocks of the song. No doubt about that.
But that was really not my point. My only point was, that describing "bridges" as a resonance phenomenon as Daniel did is not the only definition of "bridges". There are other definitions as well. 
12:35 pm
September 2, 2014
Offline
I say we consult the city of Pittsburgh. They have more bridges than they know what to do with.
"There is still a future with music, because people want music." - MJK
1:10 pm
September 5, 2014
Offline
Martin H said
@Felipe
I agree, of course we are limited by the building blocks of the song. No doubt about that.
But that was really not my point. My only point was, that describing "bridges" as a resonance phenomenon as Daniel did is not the only definition of "bridges". There are other definitions as well.
yep, also bridges could mean to switch modes (overdrive to curbing to neutral) or switch vibratory patterns (vocal fry, chest-modal, head, whistle / M0 M1 M2 M3), i also remember that this guy kevin richards often refered to these bridges as changes in the parts of the pharynx that we make resonate more (in my opinion the least practical and useful approach to the concept of brigding xd).
in my opinion all this has not much practical use, as we could sustain F4 and do it in neutral, curbing, overdrive and edge, while sustaining the same note,
also we could sustain F4 and do vocal fry, chest, head, whistle-flageolet, while sustaining the same note,
also we could sustain F4 and play with all the sound colour on the vocal tract, making different parts of it bigger, and others smaller
i guess all this could be useful to learn more independence of each part, but i really dont know if i would call it bridge, its like a over simplification and when it's 'fixed' on different ranges and notes (opposite to when you are able to do it all on each note) i guess it will limit your posibilities a bit 
2:22 pm
September 4, 2014
Offline
gerardo said
Martin H said
@Felipe
I agree, of course we are limited by the building blocks of the song. No doubt about that.
But that was really not my point. My only point was, that describing "bridges" as a resonance phenomenon as Daniel did is not the only definition of "bridges". There are other definitions as well.
yep, also bridges could mean to switch modes (overdrive to curbing to neutral) or switch vibratory patterns (vocal fry, chest-modal, head, whistle / M0 M1 M2 M3), i also remember that this guy kevin richards often refered to these bridges as changes in the parts of the pharynx that we make resonate more (in my opinion the least practical and useful approach to the concept of brigding xd).
in my opinion all this has not much practical use, as we could sustain F4 and do it in neutral, curbing, overdrive and edge, while sustaining the same note,
also we could sustain F4 and do vocal fry, chest, head, whistle-flageolet, while sustaining the same note,
also we could sustain F4 and play with all the sound colour on the vocal tract, making different parts of it bigger, and others smalleri guess all this could be useful to learn more independence of each part, but i really dont know if i would call it bridge, its like a over simplification and when it's 'fixed' on different ranges and notes (opposite to when you are able to do it all on each note) i guess it will limit your posibilities a bit
yes and bridges can mean something totally unrelated but in this case in the way i was using bridges it had its definition if you missed sorry about that next time pay attention
2:45 pm
September 5, 2014
Offline
daniel formica said
gerardo said
Martin H said
@Felipe
I agree, of course we are limited by the building blocks of the song. No doubt about that.
But that was really not my point. My only point was, that describing "bridges" as a resonance phenomenon as Daniel did is not the only definition of "bridges". There are other definitions as well.
yep, also bridges could mean to switch modes (overdrive to curbing to neutral) or switch vibratory patterns (vocal fry, chest-modal, head, whistle / M0 M1 M2 M3), i also remember that this guy kevin richards often refered to these bridges as changes in the parts of the pharynx that we make resonate more (in my opinion the least practical and useful approach to the concept of brigding xd).
in my opinion all this has not much practical use, as we could sustain F4 and do it in neutral, curbing, overdrive and edge, while sustaining the same note,
also we could sustain F4 and do vocal fry, chest, head, whistle-flageolet, while sustaining the same note,
also we could sustain F4 and play with all the sound colour on the vocal tract, making different parts of it bigger, and others smalleri guess all this could be useful to learn more independence of each part, but i really dont know if i would call it bridge, its like a over simplification and when it's 'fixed' on different ranges and notes (opposite to when you are able to do it all on each note) i guess it will limit your posibilities a bit
yes and bridges can mean something totally unrelated but in this case in the way i was using bridges it had its definition if you missed sorry about that next time pay attention
i believe that what you were explaining, -but saying it with other words- is to just switch modes, so we are changing the resonance, intensity and vowels as we go up, just like overdrive>curbing>neutral while going up approach!
2:59 pm
September 4, 2014
Offline
no modes are entirely different subject Geran. I'm speaking about harmonics and formants but in an easier way. you should do a post on modes if you want to explain modes and the relationship to vowels and harmonics. I did not because not everybody understands cvi terms or has the book.
10:36 pm
September 3, 2014
Offline
Martin, I don´t know if there are so many. Thing is, most people are trying to do exact the same but just don´t know how, then these other definitions appear.
If those other definitions match what they are trying to do, or doing, then great. If not, you have the very same problem that this thread is about ;).
Felipe Carvalho
Singer and Voice Teacher in Brasil - São Paulo
11:01 am
September 8, 2014
Offline
RE: Bridges. Wow....I don't know how you guys do it. I have to give you credit, but hell....it all may as well be written in code! 
WTF??
But as far as bridges....I "think" I agree with Dan. But I can't say for sure because I (as usual) have my own way of thought. If I were crossing a span of water from one state to another I would cross a bridge. The bridge is already there. I didn't build it nor am I building it. I'm not "bridging" or building a bridge, creating one or whatever. All I am doing is navigating my way over it, the most efficient way, in order to get to my destination. So, in that case there "is' a bridge, but I'm not "bridging" I am only crossing it. 
"It's not how many notes you know. It's what you do with them."
10:30 am
September 2, 2014
Offline
I am afraid i am lost too since you guys told me that Randy in the clip is in a light mix and that M2 can have TA involved in it.
I think i will get it better if i send you a clip. Here is head voice swelling exercice that I used to do about a year ago :
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uOon40NpMNg&list=UUQ4WqEhmYT6e-7W-w7AmhTQ
Can you guys tell me
- Is what i am doing a M2 phonation?
- Is it what one could call a light mix?
- Is there any TA activation in it?
To me this is simply a strenghtened falsetto with no blend of chest voice. It is all about squeezing the twanger and shaping the larynx.
1:47 pm
September 2, 2014
Offline
Quentin, I would say yes to all three.
Hard to hear in a reverberant room with compressed audio though. Everything sounds great that way lol
My original music:
https://soundcloud.com/owen-korzec
https://www.facebook.com/owenkorzec
All kinds of stuff:
https://www.youtube.com/user/owenkorzec
2:04 pm
September 2, 2014
Offline
I did it with my camera. It seems that recording devices such as cams or Smartphones have built in compressors because the voice rarely sound bad despite the obvious lack of definition.
Notice, though, that i am only swelling head voice. I don't bring back chestiness to the sound. I can make another video of the exact same exercice, but on a real mesa di vocce, where you end up in full voice or at least on a heavy mix.
2:24 pm
September 8, 2014
Offline
Whatever it was it shattered my glasses!! Hey, it sounded good. Personally, if I can sing it, I don't care what it's called!!! I don't think an audience would care either.
"It's not how many notes you know. It's what you do with them."
4:34 pm
September 4, 2014
Offline
Lol I agree^^
It was a facemelting C5 with a sort of Geoff Tate-esque cut to it. The general audience isn't usually saying "pfft that guy cheated and used head voice for that C5 BOOO!" They would have their jaws dropped too much to say anything.
4:51 pm
September 2, 2014
Offline
wabba_treads420 said
Lol I agree^^
It was a facemelting C5 with a sort of Geoff Tate-esque cut to it. The general audience isn't usually saying "pfft that guy cheated and used head voice for that C5 BOOO!" They would have their jaws dropped too much to say anything.
Lol! I think when we hang out too much on a forum like this we tend to be too geeky imagine that the audience will say : cool but your mix is a bit light, you should brighten the tone and support it a bit more.
I think TVS is a suited method to have this Geoff Tate edge. Some days, i would really get it, and other days, my head voice would be a bit disappointing.
Here is another video done approx a year ago :
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XIXTEmJ5PY8
It was my first time using a voice pedal and theres way too much reverb but that was funny though. Its all in head voice, and pushing very hard on it. I think the last B4 sounds great.
I posted it some monthes ago on TMV forum and Phil, who i didn't know, told me that there was another way to do it without pulling so hard on head voice to make it sound like chest voice.
7:02 am
August 19, 2014
Offline
quentin said
To me this is simply a strenghtened falsetto with no blend of chest voice. It is all about squeezing the twanger and shaping the larynx.
Yes exactly this. This is not full full voice this is pure headvoice and is not a light mix. a light mix is full voice coordination, meaning it may sound similar at C5 BUT the difference is the notes that move from F4 up to C5 you will hear it as one voice. With this headvoice thing you will hear a distinct loss of chest mass around the F#4 and it won't be a workable sound in the passagio area.
You can do a few typical "heavy metal screams" with it. It is especially evident below the C5 that this is not a coordination one can use to "trick the audience." Take any song that has phrases that go above the F4 and this coordination will not work. The only people who are fooled by it are singers who buy into methodologies, never the audience.
It is especially evident in the video on the bottom because you are not singing as high. A light mix sounds totally different. Light mix has chest connection in it (think steve perry)
Strengthening hte headvoice is fantastic to do and is part of good training but it will never SUBSTITUTE full voice
@PhilMoufarrege
Online Vocal Coach, Singer/Songwriter
Grow-The-Voice.com | PHILMOUFARREGE.com
8:57 pm
September 3, 2014
Offline
Ive made a quick video trying to explain, don´t know if it´s clear as I intended it, let me know!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v0EUjbvoQWM
I´m using the more common terms so that others can understand too 
Felipe Carvalho
Singer and Voice Teacher in Brasil - São Paulo
10:52 pm
September 2, 2014
Offline
Excellent video Felipe!!!!
My original music:
https://soundcloud.com/owen-korzec
https://www.facebook.com/owenkorzec
All kinds of stuff:
https://www.youtube.com/user/owenkorzec
5:36 am
September 2, 2014
Offline
Yep, thanks. Aside from the clarity of the explanation, your voice sounds really robust and bel cantoish.
6:05 am
August 19, 2014
Offline
Gold star post Felipe!!
@PhilMoufarrege
Online Vocal Coach, Singer/Songwriter
Grow-The-Voice.com | PHILMOUFARREGE.com
Most Users Ever Online: 164
Currently Online:
8 Guest(s)
Currently Browsing this Page:
1 Guest(s)
Top Posters:
OwenKorzec: 283
TommyTheHat: 186
quentin: 138
Adam Mishan: 84
wabba_treads420: 72
Sexy Beast: 60
daniel formica: 59
IAm: 48
Slow Start: 34
Mivke: 31
Member Stats:
Guest Posters: 0
Members: 223
Moderators: 0
Admins: 3
Forum Stats:
Groups: 2
Forums: 6
Topics: 331
Posts: 1860
Newest Members:
steviedee, Mitch, carol, fabriciofreitag, owow, alex 5, SusiKette, Student Teacher, Michael, StevenSAdministrators: Marnell Sample: 45, Phil Moufarrege: 264, Felipe Carvalho: 117
