Vocalist.org archive


From:  John Alexander Blyth <BLYTHE@B...>
Date:  Wed May 24, 2000  9:12 pm
Subject:  Re: [vocalist-temporary] RE: Power in different parts of the range question (TECH)


Tako,
In sum, this is helpful, especially the bit about slackening the vocal
chords, and about Tom Krause being physically large. I certainly identify
with misdiagnosis of voice type - I've gone through being a bass, a tenor,
a bass-baritone, and now I seem to be a high baritone, unless I'm actually
a couple of singers: a baritone with a big voice and a bass with a smaller
one! I'm a 5'8 and a half mesomorph, which really ought to suggest high
baritone... hmmm?
I've left almost all of your post in mine, so it will be more helpful to
others. Thanks. john


At 10:06 AM 5/24/00 -0700, you wrote:
>John Alexander Blyth <BLYTHE@B...> wrote:
>> high notes seem to carry further than low notes, and middle notes seem to
>> have more (subjective) power. Is there anything in print, online or in a
>> lister's imagination quantifying this?
>
>I can talk about this a little bit. Middle notes (for most people) have
>power because they are optimized in terms of resonance. The cords
>vibrate at close to full length. A long vibrating body has more timbral
>complexity since it has a fuller array of partials as compared to a
>shorter vibrating body, which still must top out at the upper range of
>human hearing, while missing out on the lower frequency bands (except
>for some difference tones, which are not very strong). Did that make any
>sense at all?
>
>The highest notes are technically less complex, but carry best because
>the high partials created by them are lower order in relation to the
>fundamental, meaning higher relative amplitudes to the same band created
>by a lower fundamental. Since the high band is where the "ring" is, high
>notes tend to produce a more prominent "ring" and thus carry better.
>
>The reason low notes are not that powerful (for most people): The only
>way that already full length cords may produce lower pitches is to
>slacken a bit. Looser means softer (like baroque strings) and again,
>less timbral complexity. Larger men like Krause and Moll can get past
>this since: A) they probably have longer, thicker cords in the first
>place (lower native frequencies) so the cords don't have to slacken
>until they get really low and B) larger resonant spaces to allow the
>lower partials to find a home, enriching the fundamentals.
>
>Most men can slacken their cords to "Slavic" depths, but building an
>operatically convincing resonance upon those notes is another matter...
>I was originally misdiagnosed as a bass because I could do this (and I
>hadn't discovered my head voice) but I have never been able to project
>in that range.
>
>Hope this helps!
>
>-Tako
...

John Blyth
Baritono robusto e lirico
Brandon, Manitoba, Canada

emusic.com