(Primarily issues for male singers, depending on what you think "head tone"
is!)
I've been reading everything I can find about singing, as well as reading
most of the posts from this list. From this I see that what I call "head
tone" is classified by many writers on voice - particularily those
summarising scientific research - as simply the upper extension of "chest
voice". For these writers, "head tone" is more or less equivalent to
falsetto, and even in a tenor describes only the very highest notes, B and
C onwards. (I might note that the researchers themselves don't ever seem to
be high baritones or tenors, who are the singers for which this kind of
distinction is most important.)
Although in my own use of the term "head tone" I mean something quite
different, I could well be misusing the term in a way that is potentially
as harmful as - in my opinion - equating the term with falsetto.
Scientific writers have often failed to distinguish between a singing and
a speaking voice and between results obtained from classically trained
singers and untrained subjects. This may be changing, but much of the
information available is still quite old. Recent research is often
reluctant to challenge older work except in the interpretation of details
already acknowledged to be inconclusive. (as an example from a bibliography
I'm preparing: Callaghan, Jean. Singing and voice science. San Diego,
Calif. : Singular Pub. Group, c2000.)
In Vocalist a couple of years ago (and perhaps also before) Dr. Lloyd
Hanson proposed simply assigning numbers to different "modes of phonation",
not dependent on range but more on how it feels and sounds, which is more
in keeping with the experience of a singer. (I can't seem to access
Vocalist's archive today, so I won't make statements about which mode was
which - I'm sure that will be verifiable quite soon.)
To me, the different between "Chest voice" and "Head voice" is really a
matter of which resonances are encouraged, the basic tone being produced by
the vocal chords doing something quite similar and the resonance being
modified either in favour of upper formants (head) or the fundamental and
lower formants (chest). What distinguishes this sound from falsetto is that
in falsetto the initial tone is produced by the vocal chords vibrating
while not coming together to the same degree, so the sound is softer, less
rich, more "flutey".
Getting back to chest/head, I feel that "head" is lighter and more agile,
and sounds smaller to the singer. Also that "chest" can, if well supported,
reach the same fairly high pitches, but with much less flexibility, and
less fine control over dynamics as "head". It is clearly possible to mix
all of these to some degree - "head", "chest" and falsetto - though I
personally feel that, if one is to be audible over an orchestra one should
choose to concentrate on a particular resonance.
Not being a high tenor, I don't know the extent to which a tenor really
does employ falsetto. Pavarotti's famous high Cs don't sound like falsetto
to me. In an attempt to feel more secure and compfortable about my upper
range I developed an exercise that alternated falsetto with "head tone"
high in my range viz. A c A F# (where the c is falsetto and the others
aren't). I got very poor results and only succeeded in dimming the
searchlight of my A. Perhaps if I had persisted for more than a couple of
weeks I might have had a nice ringing C, but I doubt it. Don't try this at
home, folks!
In conclusion: I perceive the head/chest division to be one of resonance;
the vocal science community largely perceives it to be one of vocal chord
adduction and equates head with falsetto. john
John Blyth
Baritono robusto e lirico
Brandon, Manitoba, Canada
|
