The value of middle voice?

I've always been suspicious of vocal teachers who focus on expanding range--probably because my teacher (trained in opera) didn't emphasize this. But now I feel I'm becoming a convert--specifically, I was rereading Roger Love's Set Your Voice Free and while doing the exercises I felt that I actually hit and maintained middle voice. It felt free and easy, and I was able to hit higher notes more effectively than I've ever done before.

But here's the big question: What, exactly, is the value of expanding one's range into middle voice if one doesn't have the need to use these higher notes? Now I'm not being closed-minded here--I understand that there may be a few cases where I'd need to sing a bit higher, but this, frankly, wouldn't be a big priority for me in itself. But Roger Love says that developing middle voice will improve one's voice generally, outside of having a larger range. I'm not sure I understand this.

So, assuming that I never sing anything with more than a single octave, why should I work on middle voice?

I find that having an expanded range makes everything easier overall, and I have a lot more vocal stamina as well.

In fact, come to think of it, I haven't lost my voice in years.

Now, I'm gonna throw out a guess here: you have been to at least one music session where you wished you could sing a certain song (in the original key or close to) and couldn't.

Don't lie, now. We've all been there.

Now: how would you like to be in a position where you can sing just about ANYTHING thrown at you? Would that not be valuable to you?

An expanded range, learned in a healthy manner, can potentially give you this.

Sure, I'll grant that. One of Love's explanations is headroom--as in the difference between being in a room with a ceiling two inches higher than you are, and one two feet higher. You'd feel more comfortable, psychologically, in such a space, and since singing is so much of a head game.... That seems right to me, too.

But Love's book is also aimed at people who want to improve their speaking voices, and he insists that these non-singers (who would never use middle voice) also practice to develop middle voice. He says something about creating overtones in chest voice--as if the mere possession of a workable middle voice will have an impact on the tone of chest voice. This is the part I don't get. Will having middle voice really improve the tone of my chest voice? I really want to believe this, but how can this be?

I've never heard the term "middle voice" before. I think a discussion of what it is would be valuable, before discussing its value.

Hey axcelson, that's a good question-observation. What good DOES expanding the high range do for a singer who doesn't sing material that requires it?

You wrote: "Assuming that I never sing anything with more than a single octave, why should I work on middle voice?" (Extending the high range) It sounds like you're very content with your limited range. It works for you and the material you sing, so maybe doing nothing is right for you. But since you asked the question I feel that perhaps you aren't completely happy with your range, or your present sound–so I'll attempt to answer.

Let's say you have a range of a little over an octave. This just barely satisfies the requirements of many songs, but this isn't the same as having a piano with only that limited amount of usable notes. On the piano every note has good quality and volume. The notes are consistently good from top to bottom. With the human voice, as we sing higher the vocal cords move closer together as they vibrate against each other. This obviously makes the opening where the air goes through smaller, causing resistance and making the singer work harder to get the sound through and out. So as we sing higher notes we often do so with a more strained quality. This becomes more and more evident as we move higher.

So, if you have an octave of usable notes chances are your top notes are suffering slightly (or a lot) making your sound inconsistent. So why not extend your top range so that the notes you do use are more even and consistent in sound. If the top of your range is 3 notes higher than it is now you will have more leeway to free your creative mind more without the restrictions you might now experience. Sure, you might never use those 3 extra notes, but having them will give you much more creative security in your singing, and the top notes you have now will be casier to handle and should sound better. Try it, you'll like it.

Al

Thanks for the thoughtful response, Al. I won't lie and say I couldn't use a higher note now and then--I simply thought that my greatest need is tone, and that I'd be thrilled to have just eight good notes! I've taken lessons and worked hard for quite a while now, and I guess this made it easier for me to find and use middle voice. I was actually pretty happy that I could get into it so quickly--those "GUGs" really do the trick.

To Isaac42: "Middle Voice" is simply Roger Love's preferred term for "mixed voice," the bridge (or passagio) that singers work to build between chest voice and head voice. There's a lot of talk about this process on this board and elsewhere.

Many of my songs have limited range, but it would be weird singing Bon Jovi songs 1 octave lower or Johnny Cash songs one octave higher. The sound is very different, and most people hear the difference even though they have no idea of the key. The energy and feel alters also. So my performance is a lot more convincing and has the right wibe. It makes me perform lot different on different songs, so my act becomes much more varied and interesting.

About that "octave lower" thing mentioned by Bajazz:

[YOUTUBE]Wy3Wi9hYwAo[/YOUTUBE]

SevenString, that was really excellent! Your voice sounded fantastic in the higher register.

You've got a good part of the answer; the other part of it is the resonance that you get from mixed voice which you might not fully get from chest alone. The "blend" control is crucial for a flexible and harmonically balanced voice. The more resonance you get from that blend, the more complex your voice will get, frequency and timbre wise. And remember this has very little to do with pitch.

That is a good example and valiant effort, but not the right answer as far as registers are concerned. For example Halford sings that song in a different register than you did, and that is a head voice almost completely disconnected from chest. Some people will eroneously call this "falsetto". This disconnection happens from about A just above middle C, upward to about D. In this mentioned range you almost don't have to change anything and get away with it.

another similar example is Free Wheel Burning. Halford did it quite a bit since he was not very efficient at blending his registers; you can here this in most of his live performances, especially bootlegs.

This is very close to the way that Love describes the benefits of middle voice. But the crucial question is whether the resonance that one gets IN middle voice has any impact on the resonance of chest voice. Love suggests as much, both in statements like this and in his claim that non-singers would improve their speaking voices by learning to work middle voice. But, again, I'm not sure I get this.

I'm intrigued by your use of the phrase the "blend" control, which implies (I think) that the physical positions of throat, mouth, etc., that one learns by accessing the middle voice can somehow be imported back into chest voice. Am I over-reading? Can the blend control mechanism, as it were, be separated from the blended voice and applied to chest voice?

Head voice vs. chest wasn't really what I was going for with this post. Even though the original point of the video was something else entirely, and done for a completely different thread a long time ago, I posted the video here as an example showing that, by having a larger range, you don't have to sing more challenging material an entire octave lower.

Thanks for the thoughtful response, Al. I won't lie and say I couldn't use a higher note now and then--I simply thought that my greatest need is tone, and that I'd be thrilled to have just eight good notes! I've taken lessons and worked hard for quite a while now, and I guess this made it easier for me to find and use middle voice. I was actually pretty happy that I could get into it so quickly--those "GUGs" really do the trick. To Isaac42: "Middle Voice" is simply Roger Love's preferred term for "mixed voice," the bridge (or passagio) that singers work to build between chest voice and head voice. There's a lot of talk about this process on this board and elsewhere.

So it's a new term for something that's been known for centuries? What a waste.

The blend implies that you mix your chest resonance with your head resonance.This grey area's boundaries is not set in stone, as you can reach head resonance from almost anywhere in vocal range. This resonance is kind of like the icing on top when it comes to resonant frequencies. Without this, one's voice will sound more like a stereo with a graphic EQ down to -3 db from about 3k and up. A simple example without giving it much thought, would be Sinatra vs. Ian Anderson: although they might sing a line around similar pitches, they sound completely different. Frank was more of a belter, with less head resonance, Anderson having that "head" quality almost throughout his whole range.

Caution: this has nothing to do with throat position as nothing should, and solid breath support is a must. Resonance has more to do with vocal placement and focus, and nothing to do with physical changes to your upper singing apparatus.

I know nothing about anything, but I've been interested in expanding my range since I was 12 or so.

I can't believe that back then, when I tried to sing Xanadu (I KNOW I KNOW, LAME LAME LAME!!! I was 12, ok!? lol *red faced*), the very last end high note I couldn't reach at all. Looking back, I can't believe that. It's not even very high for a girl! But I tried and kept trying and could reach it pretty soon.

Then, as I said, I got to the heights of Mariah Carey...*gag* So...yeah. In my opinion, stretching is good. If you're not supposed to sing a certain note, you just won't. There are some I just can't do, such as the very lowest note in the MMM MMM MMM song by the Crash Test Dummies. No matter how hard I try and how much I practice, I can't do it.

...also, I think it's a bit about keeping ones instrument in shape, expanding your technique (in more ways than just range) and simply becoming a better performer and musican.

If you choose to perform as a musican, you will do yourself and the audience a favour. Not will it be more interesting and fresh for both, but also good as a reminder of all the work you already have put into this art. This makes it more obvious to yourself that more work will take you still further. And you will gain patience.

I've been locked up a few times thinking this is the end station, I won't be able to play this or that song and given up. Then I've decided to give it a try some time later, ansd suddnely things start to loose up.

It's OK to decide to keep thing simple, and not use certain notes/technique as a choice. It's also OK to admit that you lack the skill to do certain things. But please be careful to bash others who use other techniques than yourself, especially if theirs is better than yours! They might have gone the same road as you, but came further, nad that's not their fault.

Oh dear! Have I bashed anyone??? I've been skeptical about vocal methods that seem excessively focused on range, as if range expansion is the holy grail of singing. I'm also not fond of metal and pop/metal vocal styles (and metal guitar playing for that matter) because of their (imho) heavy emphasis on vocal chops. This encourages showing off, which to me is the death of art. But I absolutely respect other people's taste in this matter, and though I calls 'em as I sees 'em, I don't believe I've bashed anyone. I hope not.

If anything, I see a lot of these folks dismissing my guys--as if not being able to nail that high note means that one is not truly a singer. But voices lik Bob Dylan's and Tom Waits's really move me. Really. But not to complain....

And anyway, I started this thread by proclaiming myself a "convert" to the value of middle voice. I just wanted a better sense of how someone who has little need to go very high would benefit from expanding his range.

Oh dear! Have I bashed anyone??? I've been skeptical about vocal methods that seem excessively focused on range, as if range expansion is the holy grail of singing. I'm also not fond of metal and pop/metal vocal styles (and metal guitar playing for that matter) because of their (imho) heavy emphasis on vocal chops. This encourages showing off, which to me is the death of art. But I absolutely respect other people's taste in this matter, and though I calls 'em as I sees 'em, I don't believe I've bashed anyone. I hope not.

I'm sorry if you saw it as I accused you for bashing someone, it wasn't what I meant. It was more like a advice for all of us.

Not all pop/metal styles/artists empasis vocal chops, in fact I see it more the opposite way. What really demands technique is opera/classical singing, Jazz musicans etc. Often when a metal singer has chops, they have classical or opera training.

BTW, this is a vocal group, and the title is:

"Trade ideas and techniques, find out how not to blow out voice, and learn how to be a better singer...this is the place! On-topic only"

I see this as a invitation to discuss HOW to become a better singer through technique and not WHY...:poke:

They move me too, and if you have any techniqal tips for how to get their emotional thing, I'd be glad!! That said, I sing some Johnny Cash and found out that I needed technique to be able to go that low and have that shaky old-man vibrato which is needed to get the Johnny Cash wibe. I don't think technique and motion is contrary, they compliment each other.

For the first 10 years as pro musican I used to be needing little range and entertained singing well known songs, having a ball. Then there was these songs I couldn't do at all because of this limit. So I started to work on it, and had only positive feedback. I was suddenly seen as a singer who was a good guitar player in stead of a guitar player who sang songs. All this gives me much more confidence, and all in all being a better entertainer. I win, audience wins. But if I just kept on doing what I did, I wouldn't know this....

Sevenstring....I really do like your 'Priest...but do you do anything else?

I'm kinda new so if you've posted others forgive me.

Thanks, and yeah, I've posted a few others. Here's the YouTube page of my vids:

http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=cogCode&view=videos

I;ve got that book and though I believe middle voice is important he seriously doesent shut up about it and Iwould take it with a pinch of salt.

To answer how working your entire range will benefit your voice generally, how a strong middle and high voice will benefit your chest voice, etc, in two ways that have yet to be addressed in this thread:

1. Any musical tone vibrates both at its primary pitch and at several overtones. (The overtone series, for the sake of conversation, is—pitch, an octave higher, an octave and a fifth higher, two octaves higher, beyond that I'd have to look it up.)

Working on your upper range will, so goes the philosophy, help you to develop resonance in higher frequencies. Take the example of a low A, second below middle C, fifth string of a guitar. This note is the bottom of a male baritone register. Now, that tone will contain overtones at A below middle C, E above middle C, A above middle C, and further on up. Now, that is a low note that nonetheless has overtones in the upper reaches of the male range. The more active those overtones can be, the more character your voice will have.

Now, imagine your voice as a jumbo bodied acoustic guitar stuffed with cotton padding. You know you have all this resonating space, but you can't take advantage of if, because its muffled. Now, think of the high notes as the only way to pull some of that stuffing out. You make more space, and suddenly the whole instrument sounds better.

Thus, how a resonant upper register can help your lower register.

2. According to many a vocal pedagogue, using the upper register of your voice will rebalance the musculature of your instrument.

Theory aside, I will offer this personal experience: in the 18 months since I began singing and made a serious study of it, I have just recently begun to achieve a more focused, "buzzy" head voice, more control—admittedly still not nearly enough—in the loud, high part of my range, and a more resonant lower register, all at once. Also, this belt control came after exercises done at moderate volumes, letting my voice sit wherever it liked.

Hence, my conviction that many concepts regarding the development of voice are counterintuitive. Just give Love's, or other coaches', stuff a shot. Have fun, have faith.

Thanks to everyone! This last post from AzraelsWings is especially helpful, as it truly does address head on the central concern of this thread.

I will say that the matter is becoming academic at this point--I'm continuing to work on middle voice using Love's exercises, and they do indeed seem to be helping out with resonance in the chest voice. However this works....it seems to be working!!!

Yeah, One funny effect I found is that doing a lot of high C excercises opens my deep tones.They seem to vibrate more freely.