Twang

For me, twang is extricably linked to the telecaster. Yet vocalists now frequently use the term to mean something very different. But what, exactly? I looked around at Robert Lunte's Modern Vocalists forum, which seems to be twang central, but I haven't found a definition that makes sense to me--other than a tilting of the larynx that I can't figure out how to do (or why).

So, a three-part question:

What is (telecaster-less) twang?

How does one achieve it?

Why would one want to achieve it (what styles of music, what kind of sound, etc)?

Thanks!

Twang is just a buzz word for using pharyngeal resonance, compression, and placing your notes in the mask area. Lunte uses twang as a way of bridging through the passaggio without cracking, and turning falsetto into head voice.

As far as learning it, it's as easy as humming...buzzy, nasally humming, and then hold onto that compression and open the hum up into a a vowel.

I think twang works best for rock music, but you can add it to any style to give your voice more overtones.

Thanks for that staticsound. I kind of knew what twang meant in this context and knew it wasn't the same twang as associated with a tele but don't know enough to explain it. But your explanation above filled in some gaps and helped me learn a little something. Before, like I said, I half assed knew what twang was. Now, I can actually put it to use thanks to your little post.

Tommy

You're not going to figure out how to tilt your larynx - when you go up correctly, it will do it on its own.

The front simply tilts forward.

I may be mistaken, but I believe what Robert Lunte is talking about when he says "twang" is the Singer's Formant. In Classical/Operatic music, there is a null point in the music, and vocalists trained to have around 3000Hz (I was taught 2700Hz) in their voice all the time, which allows them to cut through an orchestra without a microphone.

Essentially you are perceived as being louder, and cutting through better, without having to expend extra energy - it is simply a matter of directing the energy you are already using.

I don't think there is a one-to-one correlation between the 3000 Hz singer's formant and this 'twang' thing. Maybe, but I don't feel convinced or knowledgeable enough to have an opinion there.

In my experience, 'twang' does not need to be buzzy in the standard sense of the word. It can be soft and soaring too, but the sound is still penetrating, strong and unshackled.

All great singers do this either consciously or unconsciously. If you don't have twang, your tone will sound dull and contentless.

I went and read Lunte's description of it. He said Twang exists between 2000 and 4000 hz.

If I am understanding him correctly, what I was taught as the Singer's Formant is what Robert Lunte is calling Twang. He says that there are Formants throughout the range, and Estill used & defined the term "Twang", and Robert is using it.

(I'm not familiar with Estill style training. I studied under an Opera teacher and that was who taught me the Singer;s Formant - and she had been teaching for like 30 years.... and sang with the local Symphony on a regular basis.... So, I would venture to say she knew what she was doing. LOL

You know that sound you can make that screams "opera".. like the Adam Sandler character "Operaman" on SNL? Where he adds all of that heavy ringing to his voice to imitate somebody like Pavoratti?

THAT is an exaggeration/impersonation of Twang.

I'm starting to think that twang might be synonymous with the thing that I mentioned before called 'squillo'.

Thanks to all--this is getting interesting. Static's definition makes sense to me. I think a twangy sound would be what distinguishes, say, Robert Plant's or Axl Rose's high note from falsetto. There's a sharpness, an edgy sound as opposed to the flutiness of a genuine falsetto.

Actually formant is another term that makes my head hurt. I get the basic principle, but how can the singer's formant remain steady--the location at the 3000hz EQ zone would have to shift, no, with both vowel sound and pitch?

I always thought of twang as a bright, warbly, metallic-sounding, resonance (if that makes any sense at all).

The difference between vowels is their unique overtone spectra. That does not mean that the overtone frequencies change - only that their relative amplitudes do. If there is a cavity in our bodies that resonate at around 3000 Hz then it will do so regardless of the vowel, although some vowels obviously are better suited than others.

So the singers formant is not relative to pitch, nor to vowel sound? I'm not sure I get the latter part, but okay.

Given the stable location, then, wouldn't it then be a very simple thing to give every recorded or live vocal a boost at 3000hz to create an artificial singers formant?

The formant is not at exactly 3000 Hz. It moves around that area, presumably, as you change the fundamental note. Wikipedia says it's between 2800 and 3400 Hz.

If you don't properly resonate at this formant, there will be nothing but noise to boost artificially, so that method probably fails in practice.

Yep, if you tried doing it with EQ, you aren't adding any resonance, you're just boosting frequencies. It gives you a more rounded and robust sound.

To me, I don't hear it in Kurt Cobain's voice, but I do hear it in Mike Reno from Loverboy. I just heard both on the radio about 10 minutes ago, and that is why they are being used as examples. It seems to create an added dimension of life to your voice if that makes any sense.

davie, I just looked up Squillo, and I would have to agree. Squillo is EXACTLY what I was told was the singer's Formant. (perhaps Jan dumbed it down for me. LOL Although, I think I would have remembered Squillo before I would have remembered "Singer's Formant".) Now, this may or may not be what RL is describing as "Twang", but it sure seems like it is to me.

And here is a link to Wikipedia's Opera terms.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Opera_terms

Also at TMV, they have had quite a few posts and discussions regarding this issue.

If squillo is what opera singers use to get their characteristic and penetrating sound, then twang and squillo are not completely equivalent.

I've heard Kurt Cobain sing properly, i.e. with 'twang'. It's easier to hear live, as the mix is less produced then.

Here's a good example of twang and singers formant. In Layne's voice, not Cantrell's...about 1:12 you can really hear it.

[video=youtube;MJIOvypOWnA]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MJIOvypOWnA

Thanks, Static! This is really helpful--providing that the rest of the crowd doesn't come in and deconstruct this example, I believe I now grasp twang. And it seems useful outside the power-singing genres of hard rock.

I'm curious now about whether everyone will agree that this vocal sample represents twang AND the singers formant.

I'd say the example given by Derek is _included_ in what twang means, but it does not embody all of it.

Regarding the singer's formant, I'm sure he's doing it right. As I understand it, he's an accomplished singer, and you can't really be one without using the proper formant.

Oh, it'll get torn to shreds, lol. But yeah, twangs useful in any genre really...it's just a matter of how much you want to apply. As far as singers formant...it's there. I almost guarantee that if you had a spectrum analyzer on his voice, there would be a very distinct boost in the 3k range.