 sj |
||
|
||
Where are the voices?
|
|
|
Subject: Where are the voices? From: Richard Bridge Date: 02 Nov 07 - 07:56 PM No, it isn't a religious or spiritualist thread. There are a number of posts here I've seen expressing disappointment at the breathy, "head", infantile voices used by many current or "new" folk singers (by which I mean in this context English folk singers). There are some exceptions, but I'm intentionally keeping names out of this. It occurs to me that (again with some exceptions) that many current young male English folk singers cound be tarred with the same brush. Whence and why this fashion? |
|
Subject: RE: Where are the voices? From: John MacKenzie Date: 02 Nov 07 - 08:10 PM How long have you got Richard? There was a fashion once for putting one's finger in one's ear, but now it's mocked. It will go the way of all fads and fashions. G |
|
Subject: RE: Where are the voices? From: Richard Bridge Date: 02 Nov 07 - 08:19 PM Well, Giok, the vodka bottle is nearly empty, but other than that I have all night and in the morning I shall be sober. You should know better than to misrepresent "finger in the ear". In most cases it was no such thing but rather the cupping of the ear the better to hear oneself (the better to stay in tune) - something I have known many rock singers do too. It is also possible rather than cupping the ear, to stop the ear or to put the finger on the bone just ahead of the ear - so that the vibrations of the singing are again better heard to exactly the same purpose. |
|
Subject: RE: Where are the voices? From: stallion Date: 02 Nov 07 - 08:23 PM Well, just back from our Friday night session, we have a 24 year old belting out chorus songs a plenty, any way Richard, 2BS&S are planning a trip down your way in the new year we'll try to "shake the plaster from the walls"! Peter |
|
Subject: RE: Where are the voices? From: Liz the Squeak Date: 02 Nov 07 - 08:26 PM I find the middle finger just to the front of the earhole and index finger on the bony bit behind the ear help best. That way I can block out the nasal soprano behind me who knows 2 volumes, loud and louder, and send her a rude hand gesture at the same time. Mind you... I've got an oddly shaped ear canal so it might not work for everyone. Plays merry hell with that machine with the torch on it that doctors use to look into ears (auralscope?) LTS |
|
Subject: RE: Where are the voices? From: mg Date: 02 Nov 07 - 09:49 PM If it is what the young Irish women have been doing for a while, yikes. I got so I wouldn't even listen to most Irish music it was so bad..and those Irish women specials on TV..oh dear....they sound like they need a C-Pap machine...it is not for most of them a natural way of singing...mg |
|
Subject: RE: Where are the voices? From: Richard Bridge Date: 02 Nov 07 - 09:51 PM HIT IT! |
|
Subject: RE: Where are the voices? From: Art Thieme Date: 02 Nov 07 - 10:24 PM 3 weeks ago I had two thirds of my right ear removed. No shit---that's for real. (Basal cell carcinoma.) Somehow I felt I ought to post to this thread--so I did. Be glad, good people, that you've an ear to put your finger in. Love, Art |
|
Subject: RE: Where are the voices? From: Sandra in Sydney Date: 03 Nov 07 - 03:29 AM good thing the doctors caught it in time o be able to do something. I hope you're feeling better now Art. sandra |
|
Subject: RE: Where are the voices? From: GUEST,Jim Carroll Date: 03 Nov 07 - 04:13 AM Head voice singing proper has been fashionable since the beginning of the revival and is strictly a 'woman' thing. In order for a man to sing in head voice proper he has to go into falsetto; I am not aware of that happening in the past. I believe it stems from efforts on the part of singing teachers to make women sound gentile, vulnerable and 'ladylike'. The two main problems with head voice tone is (a) it is extremely difficult to control and at a certain point in the range (descending) the singer will find it virtually impossible to maintain and will slip back into chest voice; and (b) head voice requires twice as much breath than chest voice so the singer has to take breaths in inappropriate places. We may not be talking about the same tone, but this is how I understand head-voice. Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: Where are the voices? From: Bonnie Shaljean Date: 03 Nov 07 - 08:06 AM Jim, women use the head voice in order to be able to get the notes, not because they want to "sound" ladylike! The register break is usually around G above middle C, leaving you a range of less than an octave if you don't sing above it. Register breaks vary, but if you try to push yours beyond where it naturally falls, you'll absolutely & permanently ruin your voice. A few singers do simply seem to have no break at all (Barbra Streisand comes to mind, who appears to be able to go right off the treble stave without damage - and she still sounds great today) (heard her live on Oprah awhile back, sans studio effects and splices). But I've also seen a lot of young singers try to imitate her style and perish on the rocks of the formidable range of her songs (Evergreen comes to mind). I too detest the breathy little-innocent-me sound of a lot of singers I hear today, but that's either bad vocal technique or a stylistic choice. (Anbody remember Claudine Longet's recordings? Used to irritate me beyond belief for that very reason.) Some female singers can get away with using only their lower register and make a fine job of it. But - like having an acrobatically agile body - you simply need to possess the vocal equipment to do this; it's not a matter of choice. Otherwise your options are: pitch the song low enough that you don't have to sing above your register break (but women's voices don't go terribly low and don't sound their best in the basement; and it also means the song has to have a small range) or else strain your voice (which doesn't sound good anyway). The other thing to consider is: if you're a "belter" how many years is your voice going to last? Usually they only have a fairly short heyday, after which they get a wobble which sounds like a flywheel tearing loose, or a grainy huskiness which resembles scraping sandpaper and often causes nodes on the vocal cords. I have experience of singing in both head and chest voices, and don't find one register any more difficult to control than the other, nor have I ever heard of this. Also it doesn't require any more breath - it's just singing in a different part of one's range and part of female vocal anatomy. Men sang falsetto all the time in the past - i.e. countertenors/male altos, who still enjoy flourishing careers today in the early music scene. But it's certainly more unusual and tends to be restricted to one genre. But criticising the use of head voice is like criticising a violin for not being a cello. There will probably now follow a bunch of posts from women who say they have no trouble with register breaks and that all this doesn't apply to them - because it DOESN'T apply to everyone. But it's a anatomical fact for many (most?) women singers. If you're one of the exceptions, count yourself lucky. |
|
Subject: RE: Where are the voices? From: John MacKenzie Date: 03 Nov 07 - 08:13 AM Now if they were to uninvent microphones and amplifiers, then people would have to learn to project. Nasty things microphones ¦¬] G |
|
Subject: RE: Where are the voices? From: Mary Humphreys Date: 03 Nov 07 - 08:24 AM Bonnie Shaljean has described the dilemma of head voice or chest voice very well. If you belt out a song in the chest voice you have to do a yodell to get the top notes which are out of range. I have never heard a belter of a song using the breathy-style currently popular with certain younger female singers. Singing in the head voice can be a lot easier on the larynx. High notes carry further without amplification . But to me, it just doesn't sound like the old traditional singers did. Mary |
|
Subject: RE: Where are the voices? From: Richard Bridge Date: 03 Nov 07 - 08:31 AM I may have introduced an unwanted hare here (a bit like Jim Carroll's mention of the "gentile" voice above, grin) by speaking of the "head" voice. I wasn't trying to speak of the technique of singing (all that explanation that so annoys me about "column of air" and "sing from the stomach" which makes no sense). It's that breathy babyish voice that so many ne-ish women singers seem to have, and I am not concerned with HOW they make the noise, only WHY. If the how is ignored then it can make sense to speak of the same soft tone-robbed sound (albeit in a lower pitch, usually) that some new-ish male singers seem to be adopting too. Also the issue of the "gear change" that women have but men don't (unless they are singing falsetto as well as in the usual male usual register) can probably be ignored. Surely there are young women who do attack a song (I know some amateurs who do) but why are they not making it into the name bands, why are they not being recorded - mostly? (Obviously the Waterson/Carthy dynasty is above criticism in this respect) Bah, one of the prime offenders has just come onto folkradio so I'd better go out! |
|
Subject: RE: Where are the voices? From: shepherdlass Date: 03 Nov 07 - 08:35 AM Head voice and breathiness do not denote the same thing. Nor does head voice imply a lack of projection (otherwise you'd not hear too many operatic sopranos beyond the front row). If you listen to Maria Callas, head voice is certainly not cutesy 'little me' singing. Bonnie's insights sound about right - it's all about where your natural register break occurs (unless you're a trained singer who's spent years ironing out said break). And I'd imagine this applied equally to lots of traditional singers - perhaps those who we've heard on recordings are those whose deeper, earthier voices appealed to the collectors? |
|
Subject: RE: Where are the voices? From: Bonnie Shaljean Date: 03 Nov 07 - 08:37 AM Richard, most women CAN'T ignore the gear-change of songs unless that particular song has a very small range. Otherwise you get the yodel that Mary described. |
|
Subject: RE: Where are the voices? From: Jeri Date: 03 Nov 07 - 08:54 AM I knew there was a break intuitively, but I never really understood it until not so long ago. I definitely didn't understand breath control. I sang high and 'pretty' and I could mostly pull it off - complete with all sorts of ornamental gymnastics. Nobody heard that voice because I was too shy to do anything other than blend in with the chorus. Then I smoked for years and lost a lot of the high range along with the ability to do ornamentation easily. Much has come back since I quit, but much hasn't. When and where I grew up, young girls wanted high, sweet voices. I believe they were seen as more feminine. Maybe it's because boys' voices change and get lower so girls compensate and go higher. Voice change envy. Head voices are easier to wield quietly. Shy girls don't want to project. Sometimes their voices grow up lower. Sometimes the head voice stays with them, and if they do it well, I'm happy with that. Mind you, I think the best thing for people who don't think deep female voices can be 'pretty' would be to have them listen to June Tabor. |
|
Subject: RE: Where are the voices? From: greg stephens Date: 03 Nov 07 - 09:42 AM The girly voice does seem to be the sound of choice for a lot of singers at the moment(let's face it, a lot of them are girls). Well, it gets attention. Perhaps the most famous example is Marilyn Monroe singing "Happy Birthday to You" to JFK. I suppose audiences divide neatly into those who love the sound of the pigtails and school uniform, and those who prefer a mature, rounder sound. It's personal preference: I like Ma Rainey and Eliza Carthy for example, and that sort of thing.But there are plenty of others who prefer the other. |
|
Subject: RE: Where are the voices? From: Santa Date: 03 Nov 07 - 10:23 AM Interesting to read the more technical detail about singing voices: I must ensure that the female family fractions (or do I mean factions?) read it when they return from this weekend's singing. As a mere ignorant male non-singer, is it purely a matter of singing high or low? I suspect it was one of my posts that Richard read, where I queried the apparent shortage of new powerful female voices. I don't think that (for example) Maddy Prior or Maggie Boyle can be accused of having other than powerful voices, however high they sing. But the younger breed that I've heard seem weaker. No names, ok. Is there a more technical term for this? (Just what does timbre mean?) |
|
Subject: RE: Where are the voices? From: GUEST,leeneia Date: 03 Nov 07 - 10:33 AM 'It's that breathy babyish voice that so many ne-ish women singers seem to have, and I am not concerned with HOW they make the noise, only WHY.' I don't know what 'ne-ish' is, but other than that, I know where you're coming from. That breathy, babyish style has been around for quite a few years, and it's getting really old. I believe that it proliferates because media managers feel that a real, live grown-up woman is too threatening to the boys and nebbishes who patronize mass media. I don't listen to rock stations any more, but the few times I heard the woman announcer on a rock station, she also had a girlish tone of voice - not babyish, but very gentle and comforting. She sounded like a kindly kindergarten teacher. Bleahh! |
|
Subject: RE: Where are the voices? From: Richard Bridge Date: 03 Nov 07 - 10:48 AM "Ne-ish" is "new-ish" - complete with a typing error and so incomplete without the "w". Now what's "nebbish"? I fear you may be right about scaring the wusses though. My daughter sings rock mostly now (well, actually between bands) and gets sick, sick, sick of getting on stage and finding the soundman has assumed because she is female that she is going to sing quietly, so unless there has been a sensible sound check or line check, the first bar tends to embed the speaker cones in the opposite wall and knock the foldback right of the stage. But that ought not to be true of we mature, sensible, non-sexist individuals who people folk music, ought it? |
|
Subject: RE: Where are the voices? From: Alice Date: 03 Nov 07 - 11:05 AM It is a sign of no breath support and lack of vocal training. Unfortunately, it has become popular. Lots of young girls copy it now. Alice |
|
Subject: RE: Where are the voices? From: Jeri Date: 03 Nov 07 - 11:08 AM Nebbish: Etymology:I didn't mean that a 'head voice' was defined by how those shy girls were singing, just that it was that type of voice they were using to do the breathy, quiet singing. |
|
Subject: RE: Where are the voices? From: Richard Bridge Date: 03 Nov 07 - 11:42 AM What about the blokes who do it too? |
|
Subject: RE: Where are the voices? From: terrier Date: 03 Nov 07 - 12:18 PM I just wanna' 'hear the words', OK! I really don't mind what sort of a voice the singer uses, although what happens if these 'quiet breathy' singers has to perform a set in a club with no mics? Too many times I listen to a recording and the backing to the song is so out of sympathy with the voice that the singer may as well be singing 'la la la la'. I don't care if it's a 'folk' song or any other genre,if I can't hear the words, what's the point. Yes, I know mouth music is different. |
|
Subject: RE: Where are the voices? From: Richard Bridge Date: 03 Nov 07 - 03:06 PM Depends on the words... |
|
Subject: RE: Where are the voices? From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 03 Nov 07 - 03:18 PM I think basically it's because of relying on using microphones as the normal way of singing, rather than as just something to give a bit of extra volume on occasion. I've never noticed it myself, but then the kind of singers I'd go to listen to aren't that way inclined. |
|
Subject: RE: Where are the voices? From: The Sandman Date: 03 Nov 07 - 03:31 PM I sing,and I can sing better now, than I did thirty years ago.Dick Miles |
|
Subject: RE: Where are the voices? From: GUEST,Jim Carroll Date: 03 Nov 07 - 03:40 PM Bonnie, Don't think it's a case of 'wanting to sound ladylike' but one of conditioning. It is, I believe, why the 'traditional' voice is often thought to be ugly by trained singers. When I first moved to London I was carrying out some electrical work for a customer who, I was later told by my flat-mate, was a musical director for the BBC and who also gave singing lessons. I could overhear his classes, and when one young woman, obviously a new pupil, delivered her set piece in a beautiful hard, open-toned voice (I remember thinking she should be singing blues) he roared at her, "why do you sing like that – do you want to sound like a ******* Hottentot?" Tonal control can be obtained via a few easy(ish) voice exercises, without using head voice and without straining the voice - it takes practice, but it can be done - I've seen it happen. I've also witnessed the situation where a singer with a collapsed lung was able to handle long line songs with ease by simply ceasing to use head voice. The problem seems to be that head-voice is not a natural one to virtually all the singers who use it. Not so long ago there was a young singer on the club circuit who had a wonderful 'natural', but quite limited chest voice but whose insistence on using head voice produced a 'yodel' when she came to the gear-change. I'm fairly convinced that the use of HV in traditional singing dates back to the beginning of the revival when a handful of singers (one in particular) chose to use it and others copied. As much as I'd like to stay with this, am off to Barcelona tomorrow for four days; hope it hasn't finished by the time I get back. Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: Where are the voices? From: terrier Date: 03 Nov 07 - 04:07 PM Just as the magnetic pickup liberated the guitar in the 50's and allowed it into the 'big band' era, maybe to partly answer Richards original question, the microphone has 'liberated' the human voice. Singers both male and female are now able to use areas within their vocal range that would not have been practical just using the unamplified voice. As 'folk' music acclimatises itself to the 21st century, singers are experimenting with the new technology available to them. |
|
Subject: RE: Where are the voices? From: The Sandman Date: 03 Nov 07 - 04:08 PM listen to source singers,absorb styles,and sing naturally,its simple,dont be worrying about head, chest voices,listen absorb ,do,and dont be putting on little miss muffet voices. Dick Miles. |
|
Subject: RE: Where are the voices? From: Bonnie Shaljean Date: 03 Nov 07 - 05:03 PM Hi Jim - I think we're getting off onto two parallel tracks, range vs. tonal control. About the latter I agree with you completely. I've been referring to what necessary range limitation does to singers - about which they have little or no choice - not voice tone per se. And I feel the same as every other poster on this thread, i.e. I hate that silly-sounding weak breathiness and hear far too much of it. It's probably not been lost on anyone that the names we are Not Naming are all young pretty girls. How much slack would audiences cut for middle-aged women who sang like that? (Blokes either.) But as to WHY it's considered attractive, you've got me. I think it's just inferior voice-quality, or lack of technique, or both. Guys don't tend to have this register barrier problem, but there are still the other two factors. BTW, do you happen to remember what type of song that young student was singing for the BBC voice teacher? Was it a classical song or a pop/show song? Certainly the chest voice IS more natural - it's what we all speak in. AND SHOUT IN which is why shouting makes you hoarse. |
|
Subject: RE: Where are the voices? From: The Sandman Date: 03 Nov 07 - 05:06 PM Did Source Singers such as Harry Cox,PhilTanner,Fred Jordan,WillieScott,Sarah Makem,Elisabeth Cronin,worry or even know about chest and head voices,.No. It is entirely a product of the revival,and it typifies art song. |
|
Subject: RE: Where are the voices? From: mg Date: 03 Nov 07 - 05:07 PM I think it is copying the Irena ?/ McKennit I record everything in an old Abbey style...I heard her sing once in her natural voice and it was wonderful....but when she is 80% or so air to voice .... I can't listen to her...where are the strong women of Ireland....I am only talking about faking this type of singing. If it comes naturally, well, then sing that way...mg |
|
Subject: RE: Where are the voices? From: Bonnie Shaljean Date: 03 Nov 07 - 05:12 PM No, chest & head voices aren't a "product" of any scene, they're just part of the female voice. It's something that a lot of singers have to deal with, which is all I'm trying to say. It doesn't negate your point at all - |
|
Subject: RE: Where are the voices? From: Stringsinger Date: 03 Nov 07 - 06:30 PM "Just as the magnetic pickup liberated the guitar in the 50's and allowed it into the 'big band' era, maybe to partly answer Richards original question, the microphone has 'liberated' the human voice. Singers both male and female are now able to use areas within their vocal range that would not have been practical just using the unamplified voice. As 'folk' music acclimatises itself to the 21st century, singers are experimenting with the new technology available to them." Two words: Bing Crosby I disagree that vocal range can't be done unamplified in a good acoustic environment. I think that many singers depend too much on mics. Live singing without amplification is preferable (in my opinion) for folk singing. It's more intimate. A good singer doesn't limit him/herself to head voice, chest voice etc. but has a range of expression that encompasses many timbres. They do this and keep their voice over the years. Belting is dangerous for the vocal cords. I know of one prominent performer who has lost the ability to project in singing through faulty technique. I won't mention his name although many may know who this is. Sometimes performance which is based on image, personality, acting, etc. can appear more exciting regardless of vocal technique but in the long run, the voice doesn't last. Here's another factor. The more one learns about good vocal technique, the more one wants to hear people practice it. Frank |
|
Subject: RE: Where are the voices? From: The Sandman Date: 03 Nov 07 - 07:21 PM Bonnie,apologies,I am ignorant regarding the female chest /head voice. |
|
Subject: RE: Where are the voices? From: Richard Bridge Date: 03 Nov 07 - 07:42 PM So are the experts now saying that chest voice in women is the lower register (in which I am sure many can manage about two octaves - much the same as most male singers who do not use falsetto) and that head voice is the upper register, which can be as hard and powerful as the lower register (and in many women who do not much use their lower register is more powerful)? In which case the breathy baby voice is not a synonym for "head voice", and it is a matter of how women singers use their upper register? Have I got that right? |
|
Subject: RE: Where are the voices? From: Bonnie Shaljean Date: 03 Nov 07 - 08:14 PM "Many can manage two octaves in their lower register"???!!! Who are these paragons? Streisand probably could, and there are others but it's not common and it's not the same situation as with the male voice. Chest voice is just another name for lower register, but in many/most women its range is pretty limited. Remember, "two octaves" means that you can sing the note in 3 different frequencies (for example, G below middle C, G above middle C, and then G the octave above that). It's a mighty woman who could manage this using only chest voice, though some can. In most cases however, I wouldn't give you a plugged nickel for what they are going to sound like in a few years' time. Breathy-baby-voice does not have to be synonymous with "head voice" though it often turns out that way in practice because it's not our natural speaking voice (think of kids in the schoolyard mocking something in a high falsetto) which tends to be stronger. But, as you say, it's how that voice is used that makes the difference. |
|
Subject: RE: Where are the voices? From: M.Ted Date: 03 Nov 07 - 08:42 PM Head voice/chest voice refers to where the voice resonates, not how the sound is produced. Falsetto has to do with how the sound is produced. Basically (to paraphrase what has been said before), as the pitch rises, the place that it resonates moves from your chest up toward your teeth--that's the chest to head voice business. The differences that you're talking about are called breathy voice(or soft voice), normal voice, and hard voice, and have to do with the volume of the voice, rather than the pitch. Singing is normally done in hard voice. Soft voice singing is kind of a novelty that some performers use as kind of a signature--and it comes and goes--but it has been used a lot by folk types, even male type singers--remember "Greenfields", or Donovan? Pop recordings favor the use of vocal gimmicks of one sort or another, often high pitched ones, because they appeal to kids, who pretty much are the market for pop music. |
|
Subject: RE: Where are the voices? From: Don Firth Date: 03 Nov 07 - 09:39 PM Exactly so! Am I correct in observing that the term "head voice" is being used here in two (at least two) different senses? I have heard this same rather perplexing terminology elsewhere—and fairly often—indicating that some clear definitions are needed. I hear and read a lot of things about the human voice that, given my own experience, sounds vaguely mystical. "Chest voice," "middle voice," "head voice." As if there were something like three sets of vocal equipment. This relates to "registers," which I know from talking with trained singers, voice teachers, and by reading, is a controversial concept. In my own voice, I have two, what might be called, registers: full voice and falsetto. I don't use falsetto, except when clowning around. I am a bass, or bass-baritone (when I steal a song from one of Ed McCurdy's or Gordon Bok's records, I usually wind up singing it in the same key that they do), and by some standards, I don't have a very broad range. My lowest fairly reliable note is somewhere around a low E (on the guitar, sixth string open), and to sing above a B (second string open), I have to make sure my throat is relaxed, I have my diaphragm under me, and I "place" the tone, or I'll tend to go flat, get a thin, unpleasant sound, or pop into the yodel-break. If I'm ready for it (practice), it's no problem. But other than a slight change in timbre, I would hardly consider it "head voice" as distinct from "chest voice." It's simply a different location in the spectrum of sound. But what ties my alleged "chest" and "head" voices together is one of the most important things I got from voice teachers: the concept, not of "head voice," but of "head resonance." This is the quality that allows you, without benefit of amplification, to bounce your voice off the back wall of a fairly sizable room or auditorium, without particularly having to strain to produce sufficient volume. Relaxed jaw, open throat. Yawn a time or two before you get ready to sing (but preferably not in front of an audience!), and when you sing, you should feel the tones resonating in your nasal passages. Even the low notes, even though you will also feel them resonating in the chest. If you relax your throat and hum (closed mouth) up and down scales a few times, this should give you the feeling of "head resonance." If done properly (which involves letting it happen rather than making it happen), you should feel the vibration in your "mask" (around your nose and in your forehead—i.e., in your sinuses). Joke among opera buffs: Where most people have brains, tenors have resonance! (Tenors don't think it's particularly amusing.) As far as "breathing from the stomach" is concerned, voice teachers often use terms like this to refer to the feeling the singer should strive for, not something literal. You can't breathe from your stomach, obviously. But when you have a good lungful of air, ready to support your voice, it feels as if you have inhaled right down into your abdomen. Look at the way a baby breathes when it's asleep, or a dog when it's panting. The diaphragm flexes downward from its relaxed, dome-like position, creating a partial vacuum in the lungs, causing air to rush in, filling them. The flexing diaphragm presses the internal organs downward, then releases, pushing the air out of the lungs. The abdomen moves in and out as they breathe. That's the way it works—and feels—if you're using good breath support when you sing. When singing (or speaking), you control the releasing of the diaphragm, metering the air that passes across your vocal folds as you exhale. "Column of air." The voice is a wind instrument, analogous to a clarinet or oboe. Both of these contain a "column of air," enclosed in the hollow tube of the instrument, that is made to vibrate. In the case of the clarinet or oboe, it's the reed that sets it to vibrating. In the human voice, the column of air comes up through the bronchial tubes and trachea into the mouth and sinuses, and it's set to vibrating by the vocal folds. In both cases, the air passing through the tube(s) is metered. Both singers and clarinet players need to make good use of breath control. "Balancing the tone on a column of air" means maintaining good breath support (metering the flow of air). And feeling the tone mainly in the resonating chambers of you head, as if the tone were sitting on top of the column. These are visual and/or sensory images that a lot of vocal teachers use in an effort to get these ideas across to their students. Avoiding unnecessary tension is a major concern. The only tension should be your diaphragm metering out the breath you need to sustain the tone, and the vocal chords, which you cannot—and should not—try to control, other that having a clear concept in your "mind's ear" of the note(s) you want to sing. Tension in the mouth and throat (not to mention shoulders, neck, and chest) will only screw things up. For those who are really turned off by the current fad of "breathy little girl voices" (and men who sing that way, too), here's a consoling thought: singing that way is hard on the vocal folds, and their singing careers may not last all that long. If you've ever gone to a laryngologist with a case of laryngitis, he or she probably told you—in addition to stopping talking until the condition clears up (usually four to six weeks!)—don't even whisper, because whispering is actually harder on your vocal folds than talking is. You write notes a lot and try to communicate with all kinds of hand signals. So those whispery, breathy voices have their own built-in self-destruct mechanism. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: Where are the voices? From: Effsee Date: 03 Nov 07 - 10:40 PM "where are the strong women of Ireland"...well Dolores Keane comes to mind! |
|
Subject: RE: Where are the voices? From: Dave Hanson Date: 04 Nov 07 - 02:57 AM None of these ' sweet young things ' will ever reach the heights of: Jeannie Robertson, Lizzie Higgins both Ray and Cilla Fisher, June Tabor, Maddie Prior, the great Norma Waterson, Carolyn Robson, Eliza Carthy and Maggie Barry and their like. All froth and no substance eric |
|
Subject: RE: Where are the voices? From: Liz the Squeak Date: 04 Nov 07 - 03:10 AM I suspect that the 'breathy baby voice' is attached to a skinny young thing with supermodel features and a body that would sell a lot of skimpy tops and tissues. Of the list Eric posted, and of the ones on that list that I'm familiar with, no-one would ever accuse them of being underfed. It's image that sells things these days, not talent. Why bother with talent when a studio can tweak a sound til it's perfect pitch, even if it was produced offkey. LTS |
|
Subject: RE: Where are the voices? From: My guru always said Date: 04 Nov 07 - 03:55 AM This thread is fascinating, thanks to all posters! Reading through all the technical female voice stuff makes me feel like getting some lessons or throwing in the towel. There appears to be much more to 'enjoying singing' than I ever imagined. |
|
Subject: RE: Where are the voices? From: Big Al Whittle Date: 04 Nov 07 - 05:00 AM Yes indeed ....heads, noses, chests, columns of air, vocal folds. No wonder they get so many headaches. |
|
Subject: RE: Where are the voices? From: Richard Bridge Date: 04 Nov 07 - 05:30 AM My sneaking feeling is that the theorists overcomplicate - but of course I may well be wrong. Also I know some singers who appear to have benefitted from voice coaching, but I know of others who have been deprived of their natural sound by attempts to clone stage musical singers (see post some way above as a truly dreadful example, musical directors like that should be be taken out and castrated with garden shears, slowly). I would suggest, Guru, that you don't do it. What you do is great. |
|
Subject: RE: Where are the voices? From: stallion Date: 04 Nov 07 - 05:30 AM Is this breathy thing a "craze" or is it a way of getting away with not working on the voice? I haven't really de-constructed that many singers/ songs, for me it's a package one either likes or doesn't(words, music, delivery) What I do know is that I started singing when I was eighteen and thirty eight years on I am still learning and practising (use it or lose it). Heaven forbid anyone should de-construct what I do, I think my voice is too thin, too high (ah to be a base baritone)and my breath control fluctuates in quality inversely proportional to my weight which bounces up and down like a yo-yo (more gigs = more beer = more weight - what happened to self discipline!) What I have learnt over the years, and perhaps only relatively very recently, is how to alter my tone to suit ensemble singing and how tone is an important part of harmonising. Although Ron, Martin and I quite rightly claim that we are "just three blokes that sing in the pub" and also claim that the blend of our voices is quite a fortuitous accident I suspect the reality is that over the years we have trained our ears to find the gaps in the ensemble and fill them. Not scientific just a hunch. Any way, aren't the breathy singers of the singer/songwriter mode? Bums on seats will decide who is popular and who is not in the meantime this place will still promote the good (will it not?) Peter |
|
Subject: RE: Where are the voices? From: Dave Hanson Date: 04 Nov 07 - 06:02 AM Thinking again about it I realise what the singers mentioned in my previous post all have in common, they all have power in their voices, it's something people like Cara Dillon [ whom I can't abide ] and Kate Rusby [ who I quite Like ] lack. eric |
|
Subject: RE: Where are the voices? From: Big Al Whittle Date: 04 Nov 07 - 06:13 AM I always fantasised Eric Burden would end up as a really cracking folksinger. Now there was a voice. |
|
Subject: RE: Where are the voices? From: Bonnie Shaljean Date: 04 Nov 07 - 06:21 AM Re strong women singers, I have to add a name to Eric's list (in the 2:57 a.m. post) that may be new to some of you: Muireann nic Amhlaoibh (pronouned MURinn/MWIRinn nick OWL-leave). She's got a beautiful resonant sound, the perfect antidote to all the ills we've been discussing, and she's also a fine flute player (performs with the group Danu as well as solo gigging). She's been making quite a name for herself here in Ireland - probably abroad too - and certainly belongs in the ranks of Dolores, Mary, and the rest of the good guys. If anyone's interested, her website is www.muireann.ie - give her a listen. Richard, all that technical stuff isn't "theory", most of it is physical fact! |
|
Subject: RE: Where are the voices? From: Richard Bridge Date: 04 Nov 07 - 07:41 AM Perhaps I am too literal-minded. My first degree was in mechanical engineering, so if you want me to believe, you are going to have to produce Gray's Anatomy and show me which muscles (etc) do what. For example, I know I can't breathe from my stomach, because it hasn't got lungs. Equally I can't sing from my stomach because it has no vocal chords. I have some idea of what "head voice" means (in one usage) because when I hum I can feel my sinusses vibrate, and I understand the theory of the Helmholtz resonator (and bass reflex and other resonant speaker cabinets). But a lot of it emotionally feels like mumbo jumbo designed to denigrate or deny the supplicant (like discussing the state of health of the Builder). |
|
Subject: RE: Where are the voices? From: Bonnie Shaljean Date: 04 Nov 07 - 07:46 AM "designed to denigrate or deny the supplicant" ???!! No WAY. I have NO agenda other than supplying information which I thought was relevant to this thread - and the other posts don't read as though they do either. I think your imagination is working overtime; but whether or not that's the case, please don't impugn motives because you've quite simply got it wrong. |
|
Subject: RE: Where are the voices? From: GUEST Date: 04 Nov 07 - 08:05 AM I know exactly what this thread is getting at and I can't stand it either. It's not just confined to women - there's plenty of men who sing in a similarly affected way. Not necessarily all breathy and baby-doll ish, so much as self-consciously eccentrically styled. Whatever you think of their music, the following people have a lot to answer for: Bjork, Devendra Banhart, Anthony (of & the Johnsons fame), Vashti Bunyan, Joanna Newsom et al. A lot of (young) singers use it as short-hand for: "I'm a bit dark and witchy and mysterious. I occasionally communicate with woodland animals. I might well have been raised by wolves". To take one example, I would quite enjoy the music of Mary Hampton if she had the maturity to resist this tendency. Two young singers I particularly like, whose delivery is refreshingly no-nonsense, are Jonny Kearney (www.myspace.com/jonnykearney) and 'Serious' Sam Barrett (www.myspace.com/sambarrett). I also recently heard a lovely couple of songs delivered acapella by Lauren McCormick (of Devil's Interval) at Cecil Sharp House the other weekend. She has a pretty voice, but it's utterly unpretentious. I could say the same about Bella Hardy, though with the caveat that she occasionally - only very occasionally mind – veers a little too close to Andrea Corr territory for my rather liking. I'm quite militant and churlish about this kind of thing though. |
|
Subject: RE: Where are the voices? From: Jeri Date: 04 Nov 07 - 08:14 AM The whole sing-from-the-stomach thing is just about pushing with your stomach muscles to move more air faster. That, plus it focuses your attention on the muscles rather than the lungs. It's like driving from your engine instead of your fuel tank. One problem I used to have was thinking I had to suck in as much air as possible, and it was actually limiting me, not helping. I'm not sure why, but it's uncomfortable to push air out of an over-full set of lungs. Here is Alices Threads on the Singing Voice with lots of links to threads about technique. Vocal coaching is not going to make you sound goofy unless you want to sound that way. It can help you with volume and projection, and teach you how to keep from wearing out your voice. |
|
Subject: RE: Where are the voices? From: Richard Bridge Date: 04 Nov 07 - 08:21 AM No, not you, Bonnie - the idiots like the musical director cited above.... |
|
Subject: RE: Where are the voices? From: Richard Bridge Date: 04 Nov 07 - 08:45 AM Those links are interesting - although there is a lot of the mumbo-jumbo there, perhaps it will mean something when I read it slower. |
|
Subject: RE: Where are the voices? From: My guru always said Date: 04 Nov 07 - 09:29 AM Thanks for your kind words Richard *grin* I won't give up the songs for a while then. Am pretty sure that using techniques to help with breathing, control, projection and relaxation will help me even though I only sing for my own enjoyment rather than being in the public eye. There's a lot of good information on this and Alice's thread and I've been reading it all with interest. To my mind, any way of helping people to sing out those good songs we find, singing them well and without wearing out the voice is well worth the effort. BTW, isn't it easy to misunderstand stuff in black&white? *smiley* |
|
Subject: RE: Where are the voices? From: M.Ted Date: 04 Nov 07 - 10:05 AM Whatever sort of music you sing, whatever quality of voice you have, you must adapt your technique to the medium that you will perform in, and you must do it in a way that won't harm your voice over time--that is what voice training is about. Nothing more or less. The voice that is pleasing in the parlor may not carry in a noisy pub, the voice that can fill a hall unamplified generally has qualities that don't record well--and that's where it starts. What may seem like mumbo-jumbo is all intended help, not hinder the singer. |
|
Subject: RE: Where are the voices? From: Bonnie Shaljean Date: 04 Nov 07 - 10:06 AM Yep! :-) And in fact I agree about fascist teachers who rule by force rather than strength, and make their students feel small, guaranteeing that learners will imbibe mental stress along with the music. This then replays itself like malware every time the student practices or performs, and manifests itself physically in muscle and tendon strain (not to mention the psychological effects). You get them in the harp world too - |
|
Subject: RE: Where are the voices? From: Alice Date: 04 Nov 07 - 11:02 AM "criticising the use of head voice is like criticising a violin for not being a cello." Bonnie, I like that line. We are all born with the physical potential and also limitations of the shape and size of our vocal cords and the unique sound our body can make. The column of air is a very important fact when it comes to being able to project a voice. If you don't have enough control over breathing in enough air and then controlling how you breathe it out while you sing, then you get that weak, babyish volume. Some people can naturally get some good breath support, but good training will always give you technique that will preserve your voice longer. Richard, you say you want to know why. I think it is just a fad that has been promoted now and the public has latched on to it as something they will buy. The singer Jewel comes to my mind when I think of a very affected voice. Producers are not experts in voice technique. They will promote whatever gimmick sells. To understand the transition, known as "passagio" between chest and head voice, google "passagio". Wikipedia and vocal sites will explain it. All singers have a passagio between the resonance that is lower in the chest and the resonance higher in the face mask. With good training, you learn to make a smooth transition so it doesn't sound like a break. Both male and female voices have a passagio. Alice in Montana |
|
Subject: RE: Where are the voices? From: Richard Bridge Date: 04 Nov 07 - 11:24 AM Thank you Alice |
|
Subject: RE: Where are the voices? From: Richard Bridge Date: 04 Nov 07 - 11:35 AM Even something about the atual mechanics involved! |
|
Subject: RE: Where are the voices? From: GUEST,Simon.S Date: 04 Nov 07 - 12:32 PM I know what you mean Richard about this trend for weak, breathy, girly singers ie Rusby, Cara Dillon, Lisa Knapp, Jackie Oates, Mary Hampton, Joanna Newsom, Bella Hardy etc but which young male folk singers are you thinking of exactly? |
|
Subject: RE: Where are the voices? From: Richard Bridge Date: 04 Nov 07 - 12:40 PM No, this was not about naming and blaming. However you might guess that I was not talking about Jon Loomes (ex opera singer) or Tim Van Eyken, who has a nice Carthy-esque tone. Jackie Oates I can forgive because of her spendid material - but it is checks and balances. |
|
Subject: RE: Where are the voices? From: Richard Bridge Date: 04 Nov 07 - 12:47 PM I don't mean Ian Bruce either - and he is not that young now I guess! Johnny Silvo was one of the great voices too. And what happened to that campaigner on disability, Johnny Thunder? |
|
Subject: RE: Where are the voices? From: The Sandman Date: 04 Nov 07 - 04:24 PM I have just been watching a programme about Irish language singers. QUOTE,When Irish singers sing,they say the story. Singers of traditional songs please note.Dick Miles |
|
Subject: RE: Where are the voices? From: The Doctor Date: 05 Nov 07 - 09:27 AM Having seen and heard him only a few months back I can confirm that Johnny Silvo is still one of the great voices. |
|
Subject: RE: Where are the voices? From: M.Ted Date: 05 Nov 07 - 10:21 AM Actually, what you are hearing, and, in your ignorance, not recognizing, is the influence of Twee Pop-- Described at TweeNet "They call it "wimpy" and "twee", but Pop Kids everywhere know that the true spirit of Punk Rock lives on not in the mass-marketed "alternative" scene, or the sub-metal caterwauling of testosterone-poisoned grunge-rockers, but in the simple and pure efforts of kids banging out sweet delicious songs on cheap guitars." The influences are 60's folk rock, which as we know, was heavily rooted in British Folk music of the kind that you all sanctimoniously bicker about, so you've got no business complaining;-) At any rate, you can listen to as much or as little as you want here IndiePop Podcasts --and even download it. The music is deliberately and often ironically sweet, the lyrics are generally droll, often in a biting and Morissey-like way. |
|
Subject: RE: Where are the voices? From: GUEST,Russ Date: 05 Nov 07 - 12:03 PM I have always assumed that the phenomenon Richard points out is a stylistic thing. The singers choose to sing that way for their own reasons. Suzanne Vega was the first practitioner of this style to attract my attention. Why do they want to sound like that? Why did we all try to sound like Dylan once upon a time? Some of us are sounding like our parents in this discussion. Russ (Permanent GUEST and late to the party as usual) |
|
Subject: RE: Where are the voices? From: M.Ted Date: 05 Nov 07 - 12:57 PM Maybe you're late, Russ, but you are right on the money. |
|
Subject: RE: Where are the voices? From: The Sandman Date: 05 Nov 07 - 01:33 PM Did you know my Parents?I reckon I can sing better than either of them,but they were modest.DickMiles |
|
Subject: RE: Where are the voices? From: Don Firth Date: 05 Nov 07 - 01:35 PM "Why did we all try to sound like Dylan once upon a time?" As Tonto said when he and the Lone Ranger were surrounded by hostile Indians and the Lone Ranger asked, "What do we do now, Tonto?" "What you mean we, paleface?" I know lots of singers of folk songs who did not (and do not) try to sound like Dylan, nor did they ever want to sound like him. But I take your point. I saw a young black singer at the Purple Onion back in 1959. He wore tight black pants, a red shirt open to the navel, and he was accompanied by a guy sitting on a stool behind him and playing a classic guitar. All the songs he sang, he had obviously learned from Harry Belafonte's records. He was really quite good. Very nice singing voice. Except that he was trying to sing with a sort of "husky" voice, like Belafonte has. The pity of it was that he did have a fine singing voice of his own—when he let it out. But he was trying to be Harry Belafonte. Had he just sung in his own natural voice, developed a repertoire of his own, and dressed a bit differently rather than trying to look like someone else, he quite possibly could have been first rate. Instead, doing what he was doing, he could never be more than second-rate Belafonte. Belafonte got to be Belafonte because he was unique. If everyone sounds like everyone else, people can't tell one from another. Hard to become a big star that way. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: Where are the voices? From: bankley Date: 05 Nov 07 - 04:04 PM and every now and then an Aaron Neville comes along, singing like an angel and looking like he just came from cellbock B, home-made facial tatoos and all....... nothing wrong with the groove either. |
|
Subject: RE: Where are the voices? From: The Sandman Date: 05 Nov 07 - 05:02 PM try Kenneth Williams and Tony Hancock,together on you tube. |
|
Subject: RE: Where are the voices? From: Snuffy Date: 05 Nov 07 - 07:42 PM It all seemed to start in the mid 80s with pop stars like Michael Jackson. Instead of the lead vocal standing out above the backing singers and accompaniment, it just seemed to merge into the mix as a glorified muzak. Since then the cancer has spread - even unto folk. |
|
Subject: RE: Where are the voices? From: The Sandman Date: 07 Nov 07 - 01:54 PM But, is it just about the voice or: using the voice to interpret the song well.Dick Miles |
|
Subject: RE: Where are the voices? From: GUEST,TJ in San Diego Date: 07 Nov 07 - 02:13 PM In the end, know thyself - be thyself, if you can. Affectations and faux personae generally do not stand the test of time. |
|
Subject: RE: Where are the voices? From: Diva Date: 07 Nov 07 - 02:40 PM Brill thread. I think its breathing and opening the mouth...but I am not a trained singer but learned a lot with my time with the choir. There are still a guid lot of ballsy singers out there and hopefully the twee will not inherit the earth!!!! |
|
Subject: RE: Where are the voices? From: GUEST Date: 08 Nov 07 - 07:15 AM "Affectations and faux personae generally do not stand the test of time" One conclusion I've come to recently – largely through singing a lot, in different styles – is that all voices have a degree of affectation. In trying to sing naturally, in a no-nonsense way, I've had to think about how I enunciate, how long I hold notes for, how much vibrato (if any) I use, whether or how much I soften consonants etc. Folk singing is as stylised as other forms of music – I find I have to really work at singing unaffectedly. It's a funny old game. One other thought: it's entirely possible to have a soft, gentle voice and not sound fey or twee. Anne Briggs for example. |
|
Subject: RE: Where are the voices? From: Big Al Whittle Date: 08 Nov 07 - 07:19 AM "Affectations and faux personae generally do not stand the test of time" some peoples tests of time are more rigorous than others. |
|
Subject: RE: Where are the voices? From: GUEST,Black Hawk on works PC Date: 08 Nov 07 - 08:42 AM Slight thread drift..... re. previous posts about about emulating other artists - I could never understand 'Stars in Their Eyes'. The looks, dance routines, backing etc. were accomplished by studio professionals & make-up artists. So what did the 'performer' bring to the party? If I want to listen to Elvis, Parton etc. - I will listen to Elvis, Parton etc. Be yourself ! |
|
Subject: RE: Where are the voices? From: JulieF Date: 08 Nov 07 - 09:51 AM When I went back to singing I held to the notion that I didn't want to do the songs that I wanted to do in the higher register. This is probably that I felt that the songs delivered in that way would come out like parlour operatics. Take my Love is like a red red rose as the case in point. So I deliberatly worked on my lower register. I am aware that I have quite a large lower register now - due to practise. As a largely traditional singer it seems to work ok , especially if I can pitch songs which have a wider range so that the jump across the register change rather then drop on my weak notes. Recently , I have come to the conclusion that I need to move back up a wee bit and work at taking the power and expressiveness that I have developed ( Even though I say it myself) into the higher register. This is something I would not have been able to do a few years ago and has only come with experience. On the plague of breathy singers. I don't think it is a register thing but I think that it is an influence thing. I think there are singers out there for whom this style is a natural and effective way to sing but they in turn influence singers for whom it is not natural. I have met a few young female singers who have wonderful voices but who persist in using the vocal styles and phrasing of their heroes (Heroines if we are being pedantic). In the same way that I have met men who only want to sound like Frank Sinatra. J |
|
Subject: RE: Where are the voices? From: GUEST,Russ Date: 08 Nov 07 - 11:48 AM JulieF, Among the American traditional singers I am familiar with, some sing high (e.g., Maggie Hammons Parker) and some sing low (e.g.,Shiela Kay Adams). It might be a regional thing, but I am not sure. Maggie does not sound operatic at all. Russ (Permanent GUEST) |
|
Subject: RE: Where are the voices? From: JulieF Date: 08 Nov 07 - 12:11 PM Hi Russ Largely it was my own inexperience - I knew what I didn't want to sound like and sang lower. If I had heard someone singing high who I really wanted to sound like I would have tried that. Now I have heard lots of people singing high that I want to sound like and have the knowledge to workout exactly what it is I like. So I can take the decoration and phrasing that I developed in the lower register and try it in the higher. Certainly on the Scottish and Irish side lots of traditional songs were sung a palour ballads and tended to be sung in the same style that the light opera classics would be sung. I remember this sort of delivery from tv in my childhood. There again I remember belting the songs out as a kid at school as well. J |
|
Subject: RE: Where are the voices? From: M.Ted Date: 08 Nov 07 - 12:37 PM Sounding "natural" takes the most work of all. |
|
Subject: RE: Where are the voices? From: Don Firth Date: 08 Nov 07 - 12:52 PM Uh--how is that? It would seem that all one need do to sound "natural" is to haul in a comfortable lungful of air and simply sing in one's comfortable range. Whatever comes out is what comes out. No strain, no pain. But then, maybe you have something else in mind? Learning to relax enough to sound natural might not be too easy, I guess. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: Where are the voices? From: Marje Date: 08 Nov 07 - 01:52 PM It's infuriating, isn't it, how difficult it is to discuss this in silence? If we were all in a room together (admittedly, it would have to be a big room), we could say, "Look, if I make a sound like this..." and we'd know what we were talking about. As it is, we're reduced to giving examples of people we've all heard, which gets a bit personal. All I can usefully add is that it's not just a matter of singing high or low. It's possible to sing the same phrase in the same key in a "head-voice" and then in a "chest-voice" and it'll sound quite different. Chest-voice singing tends to make the pitch sound lower than it is, while head-voice singing makes it sound higher. Breathiness is a different issue but tends to happen with head-voice singing - I think it would be more difficult to sing breathily with chest-voice, although I dare say it can be done. As for why people do it, I wonder if it's because they got praised for sounding like that when they were children, and just went on singing the same way when they grew up? Now just let me try that breathy head-voice thing... are you listening? Marje |
|
Subject: RE: Where are the voices? From: M.Ted Date: 08 Nov 07 - 05:45 PM When you take a deep breath and let whatever comes out comes out, you're not singing--you have to control your voice to sing. More specifically you control the pitch rhythm, dynamics, and timbre of your voice. Some people can pull all those things together intuitively, but most people have to work at it for a while--a few of them manage to get past the mechanics to find a voice that is expressive and unique, but that's a very few. |
|
Subject: RE: Where are the voices? From: M.Ted Date: 08 Nov 07 - 06:07 PM Point well taken, Marje--the problems of a forum discussion about music is that you sometimes aren't sure you know what the other person is taking about, and that's apart from the the times youaren't sure the other person knows what they're talking about-- |
|
Subject: RE: Where are the voices? From: Don Firth Date: 08 Nov 07 - 06:50 PM Fair enough. I think, however, that the manner in which one tries to control the voice is crucial. Many people try to over-control, and that's where things go wrong. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: Where are the voices? From: M.Ted Date: 08 Nov 07 - 07:18 PM When you're learning, you hold the reigns tight at first. And imitation is the first step to learning. In performing arts especially, good imitation can draw a lot of positive response. Young performers who experience that tend to overate their achievements-- |
| Share Thread: |