I am curious about the idea of register balancing. After reading your e-mail, this concept seems all the more important. It seems to me, that after practicing the descending [u], my voice feels more flexible, lighter, and crisper. Of course there maybe is another hidden variable at play, but I think this may be what you described as conditioning of “the tuning muscles of the larynx to be more flexible.”
Could you perhaps explain the pedagogical phenomenon behind registers? I know little about this concept after much research, only that the chest register is created by the ‘heavy mechanism’ and the head register is created by the ‘lighter mechanism’. Perhaps the best question to ask would be, why do the vowels, intensity, and pitch affect registers?
Unfortunately, I am unable to sing above a D (above middle C) convincingly. Would exercising the register with light descending [u] help me achieve the proper head tones to be able to sing above the E passaggio point?
Thank you so much for your help,
—————————————————————————————————–
You are correct that the concept of register balancing is very important. It could very well be the critical point that determines the success of the function. Your description of your sensation after exercising the descending [u] sounds correct. Yes, that is an aspect of what I meant. The upper register is really much more flexible and I feel it is a more effective foundation for our function than the lower register. Sometimes that seems counter-intuitive, but once experienced the benefits are quite clear.
What I’m calling the registers are really the different modes of adjusting the size and shape of the vocal folds for vibration. These adjustments are influenced by many aspects of what we choose to do with our voice. Most often we associate registers with pitch, lower pitch goes into the lower register and higher pitch needs the upper register. But the different register adjustments also determine timber – or tone color, resonance, and efficiency.
The basic characteristics of each register would be: Lower register – thicker vibrating mass, more stiff, larger glottal opening, more breath, more complex vibration, lower resonance, more “noise” in the harmonic spectrum. Upper register – thinner vibrating mass, more flexible, smaller glottal opening, less breath escape with the vibration, more simple vibration, higher resonance, “cleaner” harmonic spectrum.
It would seem from the descriptions that the lower register would be more powerful, richer, stronger. Many things we would want. And the upper register would be weaker, less impressive, and quieter. But a very interesting thing happens when the registers are developed fully. The efficiency of the upper register actually makes the voice quality fuller and richer while being acoustically more audible because of the optimal resonance and the unique acoustic quality. The flexibility allows more ease through a wide range while requiring much less effort because of not wasting breath and the smaller vibrating mass. And surprisingly, many people, including myself, are able to add improved low notes to their range as a result of incorporating the upper register into the function.
To answer your question about why the three elements of vowel, pitch, and intensity affect the registers. These are the things that make up what we are pronouncing. What we pronounce influences the adjusting of the larynx. When we start out the larynx is not conditioned to adjust efficiently. After we have conditioned it through intelligent exercising we can sing any vowel, pitch or intensity with the proper balance of registers. But before that is established the open vowels, like [a] will influence the glottis to open larger. Which would be lower register. That is why it is difficult to sing a high note on [a] before training coordination.
In like manner, before coordination is established, fuller intensity will cause a larger glottis as will lower pitches. The opposite then influences the upper register to adjust because these are in line with allowing the glottis to stay smaller. Basically we want to establish the ability to adjust into a small glottis condition at will and stay there. When we are able to keep that adjustment we can then vary the parameters of our singing (pitch, vowel, intensity) without disrupting the small glottal adjustment. This gives great flexibility and freedom to the singer.
I guess we could say that this all comes down to exercising and developing effective muscular coordination of the laryngeal muscles that control the glottis. I should also point out that it is CRITICAL to understand the difference between the glottis and the throat. We want the glottal opening to be small, but the throat must not have any constriction. The throat can be remembered to be the air-way. It must stay open like free breathing. It takes sensitivity to coordinate a small glottis while keeping the air-way open. The glottis is the location for vibration and the air-way is the resonator. This sensitivity is the developed skill of a singer.
Through exercising the upper register adjustment and building familiarity with that adjustment, we can “reinforce” it by connecting to our complete vocal action. This is what is commonly referred to as “full voice” – our performing level of vocal function. This is a more common concept in classical singing than in non-classical singing. But I feel it still applies. The complete voice action utilizes the energy from the enthusiasm of expression which differs from the typical amateur singer who uses the energy level of every-day talking to sing. This won’t do the job. The result is then discomfort from imbalance and constriction.
I definitely think exercising with the light [u] will help with your passaggio. I would recommend starting on the upper G above the passaggio on descending octave arpeggios and move down by half-steps. This pattern can be expanded and started higher after coordination improves. The body should be set up the same as for final singing, the only difference is it feels like you are only using a small portion of your voice. Naturally the dynamic level will be less as well. Even as we get more advanced and start to intensify, we should never try to be loud with the isolated upper register. It will tend to get forced which then ruins any benefit we might have received. We must wait until we are able to go to the complete voice from the upper register preparation. In other words we prepare with the upper register, stop, and start again with the complete voice without changing the adjustment/size of the glottis. It is hard to explain and understand through words. But the result is full voice with a different character than before. It has a weightless quality combined with a strength and fullness. An easy intensity is what I like from this hybrid adjustment.
I hope this is helpful for you.
Although no one can say for certain why any singer does anything, there are a few points that are often believed as to why singers do what they do. With this, I am referring to the comment about Domingo and vocalizing on eee.
When one reads the writings of Lilli Lehmann, one reads all the time about vocalizing on the EE sound. For her, it brought the voice out of the throat. It was not really the forward placement people think of today, so much as getting the sound out of the back of the throat. Many voice experts of today really run everything she wrote down, but after all, she sang many years and a huge range of repertoire, even Verdi’s Traviata in her 70s.
I doubt anything she taught really fits into the Swedish Italian method, but then, she was German.
This is where we often start to get confused: the language of the singer. The Swedish Italian method worked well with the Swedish voice (because of its vowels) and was based on Italian methods of voice production. But if one listens to the average Italian speaker (a market in Rome is a great place to hear them) you will hear a very forward piercing sound. That is natural to that language. That is why so many Italian singing masters (who really only did work from the vantage point of the Italian language) concentrated so much on the rounded AH sound. They needed to soften the harsh piercing quality of the natural sound of the voice.
German and English, on the other hand, are very far back in the throats. They are not languages that are naturally forward or ringing in any way. Concentrating on the dark back vowels only muddies the natural sound of those who speak these languages naturally. Or that is what Lilli Lehmann thought. (I am not so sure she was all that wrong, for since teachers have concentrated on this “as close to the Italian method as possible” like they do today, singers who are singing in English, even if that is their mother tongue, sing nothing but unintelligible gibberish; yet, when one listens to recordings from even the beginning of the 20th century, English, even sung by non-English singers, was often as clear as a bell; they did NOT strive to make it sound like Italian, in fact, singers back then NEVER sang in anything other than their own languages and regional methods, and those that were adventurous enough to do otherwise, tried very hard to make sure they mastered the real singing patterns of the language they sang; thus Chaliapin, for example had excellent English, Russian, and everything else he sang; the same is true of Gedda, who also allowed the idiosycrasies of English to be sung). As an aside question: in striving to have everything so perfect, so Italian method, are we really giving good service to the music and the words when the end result is nothing more than a huge sigh of round pretty tones, or a bunch of endless babblings that has no resemblance to the language sung? The more this striving for such perfect vocalization continues, the less there is any need to learn any words at all, for none will ever be understood, except that is, in Italian. Although correct function in singing I do NOT believe is the cause of this, I am left to wonder if striving to make everything sound as “pure” as in the Italian language is not to blame. But that is beside the point of this post.
Her solution was to vocalize on the EE sound as the core sound that would bring the voice out of the throat. She did not advocate tightening the throat at all (and singing with the EE will not do that if the support/oppoggio is being used as it should). One can actually blend the registers extremely well with the unmodified EE sound (and with the unmodified oo as well), but the core sound must be developed BEFORE one does that.
Some singers simply DO have voices that naturally will fall back into the throat, and all the vocalizing in the world on the open vowels, the ah, or aw, or what have you, only push the voice further back and down into the throat. Principles that seem to work for most simply don’t seem to work. That is a testiment as to how different we all are, and not everything works perfectly for everyone. If the end result is a free sounding and easily used voice, then even if the method sounds strange, it cannot really be faulted, at least for that particular singer.
If you listen to Domigo’ speaking voice, it is often “in the throat.” Perhaps, he vocalizes on EEE because he feels his singing voice will/does the same thing. Pavarotti’s speaking voice, on the other hand, was quite forward and had ring. He used AH or AW a great deal in practicing.
One is left to wonder how much of this is really related to the singer’s own perception of his voice. Some singers when they wake up in the morning have really great resonance and things are just “up there.” Others have very heavy voices that seem to just sit there, and all the staccati exercises in the world seem to do nothing, that is until they get the voice out of the deep recesses of the body, and that is often done using an unmodified EEE sound.
As I say, it is really difficult to say why any particular singer does what he does (unless he outright tells you why he does it). I know for me, I have NEVER been able to start the day, not even as a student, and not even now after 40 years of professional singing, with the lower sounds on the open AW and the upper sounds on OO. My voice just sags. I must begin with the NG scales (I can sing entire arias in NG) for a short while, then everything else seems to work as it is supposed to. My teachers caught on to that instantly. And although it may not have been the “traditional way” of teaching things, they went with the flow. If I had been awake a few hours, then this way of approaching things was not necessary. However, I NEVER had a few hours before I had lessons. And getting up at 5 AM for a 9 AM lesson didn’t seem to help. When rehearsals or practicing began at 10 AM, then there was no need for the NG beginning. It was just a strange thing about my own voice.
My voice was also naturally a very dark voice, very contralto in quality (but not in voice center; the center is definitely a soprano), yet at the same time was extremely ringing. Because of that, in the beginning very little was done to open the throat (it was already very open) or to lower the larynx (it, too, was already quite low). I just was vocalized at any vowel the teacher chose that moment. But because of the dark quality of my sound, when I did the open vowels, I was required to do many forward brighter vowels first, so as not to allow myself to feel the voice too far back into the throat. Whether this was the correct function of how to sing, I really didn’t know, but it DID relax the voice.
My voice was by nature an extremely full ringing voice (I sang at 12 the immolation scene from Gotterdammerung in a vocal contest — of course, I won), dark, and what some would call — heavy. I had a strong full natural trill and ability to sing rapid scales easily. That is just where my voice began.
I was kicked out of the church choir because my voice was TOO LOUD (even singing a melting pianissimo it drown out everyone and everything).
In relationship as to why singers do what they do: my teachers noticed the power of the voice. They also noticed that it was NEVER forced. But so as to make sure I never learned to force it (for often singers with huge voices are forced to force because everyone wants to hear the power with which you sing, not the quality of what you sing, especially on high notes) I was required to sing a billion scales of staccati all on the EEE vowel. Its purpose was to constantly keep me singing with the thin edges of the voice, and my teachers made sure I knew and understood that. I also did a billion scales of staccati OOO.
I could go from the very bottom to the very top of my range singing those staccati exercises.
Now EEE was the vowel we used the most. I do not believe it was ever used to blend the range of the voice, or to open up the passaggio (at least, none of my teachers ever gave such explanation). It was used strictly to keep me from using the heavy mechanism of the voice, which a huge heavy voice like mine would naturally gravitate to doing.
Once this “lightening of the voice” was well accomplished, then we would work on the opening of the AW in the lower register, or sing descending scales from top with OO. And of course, this was done to develop a super strong middle register (which was already strong, very strong, but not equal). When the middle was of an equal nature, then we started doing what I know Michael doesn’t really approve of (and I am not really disagreeing with his view at all; this is simply what my teachers did): we started working out from the center of the voice to the top and down to the bottom. By this point, my range was fully developed and for the most part, equalized. I don’t believe it was done to increase the range, as some teacher do, but rather just to get me used to moving the voice up from the middle or down from it (which often occurs in all music we sing) and be fully aware of the tiny changes that the voice naturally goes through as one ascends or descends.
I never had any breaks between registers (as is thought to occur naturally and does with some singers) nor any difficulty going through the lower or upper passaggios. However, my teachers did want me to be aware of the fact the voice did not stay “nailed” to one “placement” or other. It altered where it seemed to register. They basically told me to leave well enough alone, so I never learned this method of singing where you break the voice into three separate registers, then learn to blend them together again. I never learned rigid placement of lower notes (chest register) firmly in the upper chest; middle voice firmly in the mask, and head voice firmly above the head or in between the eyes. And although I am aware such sensations do happen, I was never taught to concentrate on those feelings at all.
I remember mostly concentrating on appoggio/support, especially when ascending the scale. I was constantly told to soften my high notes (that was because as a kid super loud high notes always won the competitions, and the school I attended loved to win, so I often was the Solo Singer in competitions — High C that could shatter a house/theatre is what they wanted). I had to break the habit of pushing for volume on high notes. It was hard to break, so Michael’s advice to not press for volume up there is excellent — follow it. The end results were high notes that were actually way louder and far more ringing than anything I had before. And that was because the note was not being pushed out of shape, but rather, allowed to be what it was.
I do remember we NEVER sang in the beginning in any lessons any piano or pianissimo sounds. Everything was full voice, as if I were performing before a large audience. I was told when I was forcing, which occasionally would happen, and then we would begin all those staccati EEEs again. But everything was full voice: all scales (started slowly for accuracy, then as rapid as possible), trills (and I had tons of them to practice, some on as much as an octave between the two notes), legato (both the Italian method based on a very pronounced, even if not heard, portamento; and the German method of simply singing smoothly but without any imagined portamento) etc. It was not until the voice had developed its strength (not power, but muscular strength) that I learned to sing piano, and it was actually extremely easy by that time. We worked for literally months on the messa di voce, and on every single note, the great scale, and all that so as to make sure every note was where it needed to be for the most ideal function.
That is how my lessons were. But there was always a purpose behind everything we did. I never had any explanations that were “imagine floating clouds across a sunny beach” any any such things to help me understand what I was doing.
But why share all this? The reason is because a question of why a particular singer did what they did came up. Perhaps in seeing why this singer did/does what she does it will help your readers see that there is method in all this madness. There is a purpose, a function behind it all. And you are right: as my upper notes became more correctly sung (freer, louder, far more squillo, etc) the lower notes also became more intense, more ringing, more filled with depth. Balance is the KEY, and learning how to attain that balance is what every singer strives to do. And believe me, it is a learning process, but one of the greatest journeys possible.
I wish your reader well in his journey to learn to balance his voice, to open up his potential, and to find joy in his singing.
Good comment. This fits well with your earlier question. I’ll put them together for a new post. Thanks!
I always vocalize with the (u) sound because it lowers my larynx and give me a sense of repose in my throat. Why is it that prestigious singers like Domingo vocalize the sound (ee)?Doesn’t that constrict their throat? Or would it be that he does not need to improve the passaggio but to improve his high register?