I love Dr. Dan's humility. There are vocal coaches out there who explicitly and implicitly say that it's their way or the highway. Thank you for acknowledging that there is no vocal coach that can teach everything, and that every good vocal coach has something to offer. I absolutely despise those vocal coaches who pretend like their program is the only thing that can give students what they need. Amazing video.
SLS has worked wonders for me for strain eliminations, healthy vocal cord function, ease of singing, balance of tone, ease on high notes and range increase.
SLS worked for me as well. We are in our own way. It's all about "support" once you get it. You just speak and your body supports your voice. This confuses so many beginners and it confused the heck out of me.
Hey Dr Dan, I'm an SLS student - a recovering opera singer who put my voice back together using the SLS approach (including three sessions with Seth Riggs himself). You make a number of really interesting points in the video, but there's just one I'd like to comment on, if I may. SLS is not about singing like you speak in terms of production but in terms of extrinsic muscle involvement. The idea behind the approach is that the singer learns to sing without using the muscles involved in chewing and swallowing so the larynx can rest and then tilt in the upper register. Just thought I'd share. :)
Seth Riggs technique is legendary - let the Grammy winners speak for themselves. SLS IS the DeFacto standard if you want a well-balanced vocal tone and sound period. It comes down to 3 basic fundamentals - 1 Larynx balance - 2 Vowel narrowing 3 Vocal support. Master all 3 and then you will have it.
Seth Riggs worked with some of the biggest stars in the 20th Century. I hadn't heard of him before I first saw this video but up he came on you tube 'vocalizing' Michael Jackson. In one video he speaks of working with Michael while Quincy Jones was producing Thriller. He said Quincy wanted Michael to do 2 hrs per day of 'vocalising' before recording tracks for Thriller. He speaks glowingly of Michaels genius, commitment to his work and also of Michaels generosity. I really don't know enough about singing technique to have any opinion about what is correct or better. I do know that it is a good idea to learn good and safe singing technique so you don't damage your vocal cords. Also so you can express yourself in song in a way that will resonate with your audience. Singing in tune, having power, resonance, subtlety, range, different colors, flexibility all seem to be things to strive towards developing. I have spent many years singing and writing songs without training. For my songwriting it was fine but for actually performing my songs it I needed and still need to develop a satisfactory singing technique. The only way seems to work really hard at it. And learn everything you can so you can not get in your own way. Singing should appear really easy but it takes lots of work and lots of understanding for it to become easy. Some of it is rhythm and phrasing, some of it is melody and harmony and some of it is the personality of the performer. The performer is telling a story. The song is his story and his/her aim is to tell that story as clearly and convincingly as is possible. It is like the performer has to become one with the audience and one with the song.
Just you know that "2 hours of vocalizing" is not at the same time, probably they were recording at the evening at vocalized 2-3 times before that 2 hours all together. If you vocalize 2 hour in 1 take you will lose your voice before you enter the booth.
I love how you 'fessed up to what you did - and WHY you did it (fear and insecurity). Really honest and a breath of fresh air. Nice to hear. Thanks. :)
Dan, I applaud your honesty on this subject. We surely don't have all the answers nor is there such a thing as a one-size-fits-all pedagogy. The reality I believe is we all have to get to a point where we have to figure this all out for ourselves. For example, I feel each kind of voice be it light weight voice (lyric) or a heavier weight voice (dramatic) has their own inherent advantages and disadvantages we have to overcome or learn to work with. How do you feel?
Great video. Sls has me singing beyond what I've ever dreamed possible and like you I've studied other methods and garnered what works for me discarding what doesn't. So I have developed for myself an eclectic regime of exercises that has made me the singer I am today. Unfortunately other teachers out there have the font of all knowledge syndrome and upload videos on TH-cam with titles like Why sls does not work. It has for me and I'm glad you are open to all available knowledge and would gladly recommend you to anyone wanting to learn methodology in this great art form. Cheers .
SLS transformed my voice in 4 months. I was diligent w exercises- 10 minutes daily. Not kidding my voice was transformed into a lively angelic voice w a wide range. Before- I could barely find a note. I mean--' I really could barely find a note.
I've been doing SLS for about 5 months now and I don't have much other point of reference because this is my first real go with a coach. Facts are though, I'm much happier with my range, my pitch and tone than I ever was before. I'm much more confident and I trust my tutor. I believe the reason we're doing SLS is that I have a bad habit of raising my larynx for higher notes and try to pull my chest voice up. I'm getting much better with my passaggio now. What I'm not sure about is whether my tutor intends to move me onto other methods and educational tools when this approach has 'fixed' the problem, or if it's just a case of doing the same and same again. I hope not, but I do recall that I wanted to be able to sing like Chris Cornell and through doing the exercises to fix my larynx problem, the ability to do this is starting to come naturally. So that's pretty awesome! What I like about your channel is that I don't feel like that approach is being poo-pooed, but I also like that when I visit your website I can find your very impressive CV and that I can trust your advice.
I started using Seth Riggs' Singing For The Stars recently to improve my voice (I am an intermediate), and regardless of its advantages and disadvantages, it is very helpful in maintaining an even tone throughout my registers without having to tighten my belly hard or unnecessarily yell to sing higher.
Learned how to sing but listening to metal and then Chris Cornell. Now I'm lacking the stamina that takes and having to relearn these other ways. As far as I can tell so far, it still takes a lot of body engagement to hook support down low and carry it all the way up. I believe your lowest and highest notes take the same support it you want your highs to have that full body to them.
Well stated, Dr. Dan. I've had the very same thoughts for a while now that SLS has good things to offer, but in and of itself, not complete. I'm definitely going to check out more of what you have to teach. You seem to have a very level-headed approach to singing. Very cool in my book!!
Dr. Dan, I am really enjoying your videos. Question: is there a difference in the way that tenors like Pavarotti sing high notes and others? What I mean is it only the resonance that is different, or is the musculature used different?
I found myself attracted to SLS because it sounds like the easiest way to sing without straining your voice, as well as helping you utilize the uniquness of your own voice rather than subconciously copying the voice of your idols and influences. I am a novice in terms of singing, more of a natural talent rather than taught. I do, however, know I need to be taught. But my point is, even though I know very little about singing, my skepticisim about SLS grew when I went to Seth Riggs a teacher of the stars, website and noticed that there are several famous people whom he trained, who I have always considered things that irritated my ears on many of their song. Mostly, I noticed some of these famous people, who are of course, professionals, but they tend to have either a nasal tone or a whiny tone in many of their songs. I am not going to call names, as it would become a disupte started for someone who idolizes certain singers and tend to not hear any flaws. But I'm just putting this out there for others to open comment, if they ever notice the same. Or, maybe something is wrong with my ears or even my mind. But anyway, I even know some of these singers who I can never really understand what they are saying rather as in a mumbling sound, diction, enunciation, or other issues. In short, this makes me wonder if SLS is as great and it has elevevated so many people, whiy do so many of them have flaws that I seem to hear, and these are not addressed in SLS. I do want to believe that SLS is the path for me because I do think it offers just what I want in terms of technique, voice health, ptich, and so forth. However, I still have a degree of skepticism because of some of the people he listed who I think are professionals, but noticeably have some problems and should not sing certain songs.
Thanks, I love your approach and your respect for other methods. Ofcourse there are bad methods and the average student you are adressing can't sit through and filter out what is right or wrong. This is the job of us teachers. Let's just hope most of our fellow teachers/coaches keep up with all the new information and also that they have moral standards too!
with all due respect, if you are not a singer yourself, and have not had the experience as a professional singer you have no idea what the body goes through. Singing is a total body experience. There are certain muscles that the singer has developed to create a very fast air flow through the vocal bands, to create the pitch you are thinking. The upper body is a stress factor on the instrument itself which is in the neck. It would do well for anyone who sings, pop, jazz, etc. to learn how to sing classically first so that they trained the body to get you there in terms inhalation and exhalation and diction skills. There is this terrible urge for everyone to reinvent how things are done vocally, but if the body is not behind the kind of sound you make regardless of what it is, you’re going to put stress on the vocal cords which is very damaging. And this kind of damage is very prevalent today. Remember whatever your approach, the body sings for you.
With all due respect, I appreciate your perspective, and I agree that singing is indeed a total body experience. The classical approach to voice training has long-standing merit and has shaped the foundation of vocal techniques for many singers across various genres. However, I'd like to highlight a nuance in our understanding of vocal training that may differ from your viewpoint. While a classical foundation can provide essential skills, it is not necessarily the one-size-fits-all solution for all singers. As a seasoned professional singer and experienced singing voice specialist, I can affirm that singers often need to develop task (genre) specific techniques. This means that the training and muscular development required for singing pop, rock, jazz, or other contemporary styles may vary significantly from the classical technique. Research in modern vocal science supports this idea, showing that various genres often call for different vocal setups, breath management, resonance strategies, and stylistic nuances. The risk of damage to the vocal folds does exist, as you've rightly pointed out, but it's not exclusive to non-classical techniques. It's the responsibility of vocal coaches, including myself, to guide singers in developing safe and effective techniques tailored to their specific genre and individual needs. Your passion for the integrity of vocal technique is admirable, and I believe our shared goal is to nurture voices in the healthiest way possible. I hope this offers some insight into the multifaceted nature of vocal training in today's diverse musical landscape.
Thanks for your video. What you say is exactly what I think. I am now looking for the techniques of bel canto and speech level singing to explore about how to use my voice
Great video! From what I've seen, the biggest problem (at least for most adult male voices) is that the person is not taught how to "mix" vocalis with crico-thyroid muscles (or it may be very difficult for most to learn). From there, I learned how to sing C-T dominant modal. SLS (and others), AFAICT, just bypasses this by teaching weak muscles all around, which might be fine with certain genres and amplification, but I wanted to know how to sing with a full, rich, deep, etc. voice, and the SLS exercises just seemed to promote vocalis dominance, which I already had! It also seems to encourage nasality, which again might be okay for certain genres, but it's not the kind of sound I want to get stuck with. lol
Artistically speaking, singing is using your voice in a musical manner to communicate ideas and emotions to an audience. Technically, however, singing is nothing more than sustained speech over a greater pitch and dynamic range. The key to singing well is the ability to always maintain a speech level production of tone, one that stays connected from one part of your range to another. You don’t sing like you speak, but you need to keep the same comfortable, easily produced vocal posture you have when you speak so that you don’t reach up for high notes or press down for low ones. There’s no great mystery involved. But although it’s easy to understand, it takes time and patience to coordinate everything so that you can do it well. A teacher needs to know how to get each of his students to sing through his or her range in a connected, easy manner, without any “breaks” or sudden changes of tone quality. This process does not include anatomy or direct manipulation. Correct method and the ear do most, if not all, of the work. You don't need to think about twenty different things every time you open your mouth. It doesn't matter if you sing pop, rock, opera or musical theatre. You should sing with a technique that allows you to just relax and concentrate on performing - which is what it's all about anyway, right? What is interesting is that the best opera singers (of yesterday and today) sing in a clear, speech-level manner that lets you understand their words all the way through their ranges. This is the same ideal that people listen for in any type of good singing. th-cam.com/video/WGREQ670LrU/w-d-xo.html
Curious to know if you’re familiar with Roxie Francis (who is AMAZING and was one of my trainers) or Per Bristow. So many methods you could get lost! Still trying to find myself and my real voice even at my ripe old age of 34. I tend to get a little “lost in the woods” as it were. When did you really and truly find your own voice? I’m not sure whether I’m alto or mezzo. Everyone I have worked with says Alto, but my range says otherwise. Sorry if this is all over the place but I have several thoughts at once. Any insight would help, how many different influences have you had?
Ally, I think most singers are on a never-ending journey of self-discovery. We never actually arrive. I encourage you to not get too bogged down in voice classification. Perhaps this video about voice classification will prove helpful - th-cam.com/video/mkKsB3fpMH4/w-d-xo.html
I'm an opera singer student and I study Bel Canto. I don't mean to despise SLS but I think it's super limited and not a good fit for everyone. I don't have a good natural singing voice, I learnt to sing and I only can produce an operatic sound so that sounds impossible for me and honestly I don't care much about it
bel canto and SLS is not the same thing. But lies on the same idea, bel canto is with a stronger diapraghm and and with a lot more resonance, but the basic idea is the same. Though you need different scales for each of that.
Vocal research needs to do some randomized studies using different techniques and then find which group sings better. You cannot argue the effectiveness of a singing technique based on just physiology and expert opinion. .
I'm with an SLS coach right now. Ive been taken lesson for about 2 months. She focuses so much on vowel closure and I feel awkward and constrained. Is this just because I'm a new singer learning new concepts?
Every singing teacher has something to offer...some more than others. Open communication with your teacher will ensure your lessons provide you with the best possible outcomes. I think the following videos will be helpful - th-cam.com/play/PLZFx6cLexy5FPjc2hy4NysR0LW7AmYeMH.html
Singing for the Stars is unfinished; SLS itself is complete if introduced to you by someone who has passed all Seth's Test. It is hard to say you totally understand a method without going all the way through it. It's like picking up the books that are being taught at Harvard and then state you got everything Harvard has to offer.
Yes, that booklet is NOT a good representation of what SLS became or what Seth Riggs really teaches. SLS did not really start formalizing its pedagogy until early 2000 and even then it took a long time to standardize it. And I agree, one cannot study SLS from books and expect to understand it without following up for deeper information. Speech level singing is a phrase that describes the basic position of the larynx which is the same thing Dr. Dan teaches- the voice box should not be constricted or too high or too low. SLS is just that--- It's actually pretty clear that Dan adopted concepts from SLS because I recognize it from his videos. True many more "traditional" more "academia-oriented" bel canto sounds (adding '"y" before the "ah" in the 5 tone scale) are incorporated but essentially what he does is very similar to what Seth does. Seth uses a 5 tone "ah" as a diagnostic tool for assessing a student's current state of balance between muscle and air and their understanding of vocal tract shaping and laryngeal stability. I know this because I have taken lessons from Seth and some of his inner circle coaches. Dr. Dan gets more technical about explaining the anatomy and mechanics (which Seth will do) but mostly SLS focuses on training singers with exercises to promote transitioning through passagios/bridges/transitions without allowing the nervous system to interfere during the building process. And...as with ANY pedagogy uses shaping of vowel sounds and enlists various consonants (m,n) to guide and strengthen. It's interesting though...yes Seth teaches about fach...however, he never mentioned in any master classes or private lessons that the "sweet spot" was a person's chest voice. He does not distinguish chest voice as being the part of the voice that is "easy to sing in" and hence the "sweet spot". I mean, I get that Dr. Dan is using the chest voice as a starting place to discover a singer's basic fach, but I don't prefer to send a message that it always will be the best part of a singer's voice-especially for new and inexperienced singers who may not have a context for interpreting what he means. Seth was first and foremost a classical singer and started his career teaching classical performers. He also worked with musical theater singers. He later branched into the pop/R&B industry. He always had professional classical artists on his roster though. True SLS coaches (I admit there are weak ones, good ones and great ones) do not distinguish between classical and contemporary while the voices are being developed as instruments. That's a whole other thing. Many teachers of the classical genre train "classical styling" into students' voices which can end up rendering them mediocre before even giving them a chance to know their true unaffected voices. The idea of SLS is to preserve the natural quality of every singers unique voice throughout the range which with SLS students is commonly multiple usable octaves affording them the ability to sing many different types of music. Incidentally, if you have ever heard Josh Groban refer to a "voice teacher" who introduced him to David Foster....well, yeah...it was Seth Riggs.
Well actually Angela Bradford I had the privilege of living with Seth Riggs for 8 years in his Hancock Park home, and later his Koreatown home, where he currently resides; and he would simply say if he could go back and re-brand his method, he would call it "Friendly Compression." You are correct in some aspects of what you are stating. But vowels are related to the vocal fold conduction, for they need oscillation to exist. Consonants are more so related to pressure and stresses. Simply google the definition of a Constonant - "basic speech sound in which the BREATH IS AT LEAST PARTLY OBSTRUCTED and which can be COMBINED with a vowel to form a syllable." There for consonants are stresses in air flow, or blockage of air release; which are formed by tongue, teeth, and lips only! Consonances can be created without oscillation. So how does (M,N) "guide" any growth in the muscles that form a singers ability to oscillate sound frequencies; when they are simply just obstructions to the breath release? More so (M,N) hold the air back longer than plosives like (B,P); and don't need a vowel for them to exist. As in "B" is pronounced "B-UH" and "P" is pronounced "P-UH" which keeps a singer from isolating specific vowels. Then there is "Y" the sometimes a vowel and sometimes a, Partial Breath Obstruction, consonant. Its the most vowel a consonant can be, with its quick elongating of the mouth on an obstructed "uh," having absolutely no value assisting compression of "uh" like that of "mum;" "uh" surrounded by two nicely balanced sounds effects of straight compression. While "Y" can even be seen as a dangerous tiny plosive "uh", for it creates a quick "Y-UH" sound in "Y-uh-ey" for "yay" and "y-uh-es" in "yes." Its better to train a singer with (M,N), not because it "guides" but because it "isolates" the vowel within in an obstructed breath release, it isolates a vowel after an evenly balanced compression sound effect; focusing the singer on the very musculature, that holds the various oscillations, that can grow a singer's control over vocal fold conduction at various frequencies. (M,N) are straight forward stresses, pressure building, not needing the "uh" vowel to exist. Other consonances like "s" act like (M,N), in that it doesn't need "uh" to exists, but lacks the compression needed to build resistance on the muscles that come together to hold a vowel on pitch; as mention with the problem of using "Y" as a builder. All muscles need some form of resistance to grow and strengthen; ask this of any athlete or body builder. Once muscles are coordinated enough to hold pure vowels, all consonances can be thrown in front of them; simply by changing the mouth in the same manner as one would when speaking, this then creates singing as we know it... I am truly impressed by your response, but its important to note that any and all consonances are created solely in the mouth, where as vowels are in the manipulation of the folds; and until a singer has the ability to fully isolate the two, separate from each other, that singer isn't fully developed and runs a risk of loss of voice in a professional setting. It truly is important to not over complicate nature, just to show off how one is different in approach nor how learnt one can be. "The Rise and Fall of Bel Canto," a book Seth made me read, which is out of print, published 1821; wish I could find a copy for myself, for it explains how conventional teachers ruin the fundamentals of the voice, simple to show off how they differ. There is the straight forward path, and then there is the scenic route to all destinations. The more paths learned, the longer it takes someone to do something, and the more complications they add; all increase higher risk of failure... Seth Riggs is a graduate from John Hopkins; and his more simpler approached of just isolating vowels only, within "Friendly Compression," has given me the ability to save singers from surgery. Surgeries which their doctors thought could not be avoided, through vocal edge therapy alone. I only share, for I believe everyone has the right to this knowledge. No one should be held back by ego nor money constraints.
Mark Hayes thank you so much for cleaning up my act 😄 Lol Seth pulled a book off his shelf when I was there and told me to read it but I never did. I will definitely do so now. Yes I recall that he attended Peabody at Hopkins- (I’m a native Marylander as well but met Seth at a Master’s class in Silicon Valley when SLS was taking off as a bigger brand and he recruited me after the class. I was in an completely different industry at the time. I dabbled and became a kind of very serious hobby singer with an ability to get students off and running without making them sound weird;) I’m in the healthcare industry now and back in Maryland near Seth’s hometown (Seth trivia) but still help the occasional singer when an opportunity presents itself. I am currently helping my 13 year old autistic son (budding baritone who is already over 6ft tall) navigate his huge voice. That’s how I came across this post because I have been out of the loop and decided to brush up on what’s going on in the singing world. Thank you for taking the time to write that response to me. That was very kind of you. And- who doesn’t love free information? Haha. When I chose the word “guide” I was very lazily attempting to describe the experiential piece of the instructor- student interaction. Like the use of the edgy “m” to assist a student in getting through passagios without blowing a gasket lol. I was trying to talk about nervous system stuff. You of course make an expert observation that I was very clumsy and not nearly detailed enough in my explanation. In this type of setting no assumptions can be made as far as context goes and details and distinctions are an essential part of the formula. In a world where words, language, letters and sounds are the tools of the trade, one must be mindful of what she says. Cheers!
+Dr Dan's Voice Essentials i cant find a superHeadvoice method ... how can i mastering SuperHeadvoice.... at beginning i cant do it.. but im training everyday... at the day 3 on the morning.... i hit the high light note... but its only going for 3 minutes... at the day 4... it can last for 20mnit... at the day 5.. i can do it almost for 4 hours... at the day 6.. i cant do it at the afternoon.. that register was fully dissapeared.... why doctor? pleaseeee answer.. its really help me... do you have any personal contact? like whats app org wechat? so i can send my sample to you.. ita really important for me as a singer.. i can mastering all register.. except whistle and superHeadvoice... theres a mission for me that i not yet fulfill
Agree with you in terms of the fact that SLS has a lot of good stuff on bridging the passagio, but I found a lot of the TH-cam SLS teachers have the exact Vocal-God attitude you're talking about and it's a shame. That hasn't been my experience with SLS at all - both SLS teachers I had were really open to new ideas and helped me understand how their method integrated into my Estill training (which is really where my heart lies).
You didn’t take lessons from an SLS teacher? I went through SLS programs and when I got stuck, I went to an SLS coach in Phoenix and took lessons from her for 4 years and even someone like Micheal Jackson gets corrected while doing exercises. Now my voice is at a place where I never thought was possible. You need someone trained to hear when you go wide. At least that was my experience.
@@EMILYCOLEOFFICIAL Yup - It was Stephanie Swann... She was INCREDIBLE... If you heard the before and after of my voice you would be amazed.... I am... When I first started taking lessons from her I had done singing success from brett manning... which improved my range but she balanced my resonance, got me through my next passagio and taught me to cover properly through the bridge.
You are missing the point of Seth. He is only explain that at an early age to start develop the bridge. Even an awesome singer Like Michael Bolton went to Seth years later after his voice stated failing on him. Michael Bolton was an unusual case he really did it his way and it did tire his voice. I do compliment you that there is not one hard fast rule to learning to sing. And as we both know some just sing without any training at all incredibly. I do admit Seth does come across a little hot headed in his interview videos but hey he is and old man now and has coached all the greatest singers in our generation. Old people at times can get a little kind of irritable or come across as didactic in some ways I think its just and old man that has helped so many great singers achieve success. There is a big difference from teaching singing and teaching singers to be successful great artists of our time. Please do that that in to consideration.
hhhmmmm speech level singing.. where to start.. My first point is that the resonance of the notes within the 12-TET scale when A4 is set at 440Hz (standard pitch) do not seem to correlate with the voices natural relaxed resonance., or talking pitch.. This is what the 432Hz hoppla is about, also called Verdi pitch... Tuning to around A4=432Hz with our 12-TET system seem to fit most voices when it comes to relaxed throat feeling.. I tried different tunings and at A4=432Hz i can sing high wihtout feeling much tension in the throat.. When teh pitch is increased to 440Hz you tend to shift the entire 12-TET scale up an entire key .. What this does is that I can sing a E4 comftable in middle register at 432Hz but at 440Hz that note is halfway into head register.. Most people without a great ear or pitch will often sing flat of 440Hz, not sharp.. That because the placement of the notes at A4=440Hz is placed so far north of the relaxed 432Hz pitch.. Is not just the passaggios notes allthough those are most affected.. Even my C4 (middle register is nice at 435Hz (-20 cents), but weird and uncomftable at 440Hz). And head notes at F#4,G4,G#4 are much easier to find the right air pressure and larynx placement or throat tilt.. There is a clip here on youtube where a choir conductor explains and demonstrate the difference between 432Hz (verdi tuning) and 440Hz tuning when the choir is singing a classic piece of Giusepipi Verdi.. look it up.. I am a deep baritone and E4 gets within reach with a mid resonance tone at 432Hz. At 440Hz I need to change gears more towards a lighter head resonance function. It is rather difficult to balance the voice to get that E4 correct without pulling chest" or going into falsetto.. For a lighter baritone that note would be F4 (my leadsinger in the band) and for a brighter tenor that note would be F#4. A note that Verdi wrote his choir pieces to hit for the tenors and an octave above (F#5) for the bright sopranos. The previous standard pitch in Europe was A4=435Hz from 1859 to the late 1930s. That is as high you can go before you notes start getting a weird placement for the notes within the 12-TET scale, and in my opinion what we should have kept as standard pitch... That pitch was chosen because operasingers at that time seem to struggle less than at the higher 440-447Hz pitches, This was for a wide mix of different operas and vocal classes. I have not been able to find any such considarations when the 440Hz was chosen as standard pitch for A4.. I compared music at 440Hz and 432Hz and the latter is much more relaxing and soothing.. ( I tend to not compare them directly as the memory of one pitch would affect the other if you hear them immediately after eachother),, and it is not just a matter of going down in pitch.. I listen to classcial music at 442Hz (typical european orchester pitch), ~ 430Hz (romantic pitch),, and the new baroque pitch at 415Hz. And 430Hz is calmer than 415Hz which is a G#4 when A4 is the standard 440Hz.. Also voices sound more "true" as the color of the voice sounds more similar to our talking voice at 432-435Hz.,, not displaced as it is at 440Hz... Also most meditation and humming from around the globe does not seem to fall into our 440Hz tuned system.. Why am I writting this.. Because I feel it is relevant for singing coaches to get the aspect of tuning pitch into their mindset and not just conform to a standard set back in the early 50s that to my experience does not correspond well to our human vocal instrument...
Bullshit, you are so down the musical conspiracy theory's I don't even know where to begin. I know this whole thing about specific Hz but those are just BS. For of all there were SEVERAL tunings of history. It was not only about the place of A4 but also between the intervals. Well tempered, Young temperament and Equal temperament, which are all documented properly. Second this 432 is a more relaxed for throat is just bullshit as it is. The human voice box doesn't care what the tuning is, since the dawn of humanity there were no tunings or ancient tunings when hitting two sticks together, there weren't even proper instuments like today. The human voice depending on your level of study and vocal fach only cares about whether biologically you could resonate that note or not BASED ON THE LENGHT OF THE VOCAL CHORDS AND TRACK. Have nothing to with wether the A4 is 440 or 432. Of course A4 is more relaxed with 432 than 440 because there are a 8Hz difference, because IT IS LOWER, has nothing to do with magic tunings. It is more relaxed because it is lower, BUT SO IS EVERY NOTE not just the A. It also becomes bullshit since most of the 20th century was with the 440 tuning. There were a lot of singers who did JUST FINE with this new tuning, because 8hz of a difference isn't that much of a difference from a singing technical standpoint so doesn't matter anyway. If you need 8Hz more to hit a note you are far away from that note anway since you have to be able to scale above it which a lot more than 8Hz. BTW the "Verdi tuning" is not just about 432, since at the time of Verdi in the 19th century there was the Young's temperament which is constinsts of many more things than just lowering the hz of the A4 and the whole scales. You can read more about this here: www.math.uwaterloo.ca/~mrubinst/tuning/tuning.html
What Seth Riggs figured out, as have others, is some aspects of what was generally known by most good teachers from the bel canto era. They knew it all back then when singing was an art. Vocal pedagogy is a lost art. We don't need a method or an eclectic mix of methods. We need to work with the literature of the teachers who did know it all and get back to that. If it won't work for opera, it's not complete.
geez,your speking range is as high as a woman's! You can prob sing the last key of a piano. I'll bet there's no bass singers teaching singing lessons. hahah
He's definitely a high tenor. From the little grit on his voice, with his higher articulation points, though, I bet his range is something like B2-D5 in chest voice, and can probably get up to around C6 in falsetto. He actually has a quite dynamic speaking voice (very broad) but sits a little high on the averages.
@@johndeeregreen4592 yeah, there's a few baritone coaches That can sing Hi Pitches But the tambor is always not the same Compared to someone who already has a high voice like Steve Perry Oh well You can't have it all
+Dr Dan's Voice Essentials I have had classical training for some time and it was good but they taught to sing with an open throat and louder which was different from speech singing.
+Dr Dan's Voice Essentials what I have noticed with Brett Manning is that while he is an SLS based teacher, he has borrowed from other schools of thought in the creation of The Singing Success series. for example, his exercises practice with the lyrics in three positions, High mid and low. within the Estill Method, referred to as Twang, sob, and speech level. also some of his chord closure and edge training weren't in the original. He also did very well with stylistic applications. while I am not a purist and totally agree with you in learning from different schools of thought, I would say that Brett Manning brought a lot to the table and helped to evolve some of the limitations associated with classic sls.
I love Dr. Dan's humility. There are vocal coaches out there who explicitly and implicitly say that it's their way or the highway. Thank you for acknowledging that there is no vocal coach that can teach everything, and that every good vocal coach has something to offer. I absolutely despise those vocal coaches who pretend like their program is the only thing that can give students what they need. Amazing video.
SLS has worked wonders for me for strain eliminations, healthy vocal cord function, ease of singing, balance of tone, ease on high notes and range increase.
I agree with what you're saying though, we need other things too.
SLS worked for me as well. We are in our own way. It's all about "support" once you get it. You just speak and your body supports your voice. This confuses so many beginners and it confused the heck out of me.
Same! Totally saved my voice when I had my band and was straining to be louder than the instruments.
The video kind of doesn't answer the question in the title. I learned close to nothing about what SLS is, only the statement that it's "all natural".
@@meerkatnip892 we learned a lot about Dr Dan though 😅
I think it's pretty self-explanatory. He did explain the fundamental idea at 2:40.
Hey Dr Dan,
I'm an SLS student - a recovering opera singer who put my voice back together using the SLS approach (including three sessions with Seth Riggs himself).
You make a number of really interesting points in the video, but there's just one I'd like to comment on, if I may.
SLS is not about singing like you speak in terms of production but in terms of extrinsic muscle involvement. The idea behind the approach is that the singer learns to sing without using the muscles involved in chewing and swallowing so the larynx can rest and then tilt in the upper register.
Just thought I'd share. :)
Thank you! :)
Interesting. 🤔
Seth Riggs technique is legendary - let the Grammy winners speak for themselves. SLS IS the DeFacto standard if you want a well-balanced vocal tone and sound period. It comes down to 3 basic fundamentals - 1 Larynx balance - 2 Vowel narrowing 3 Vocal support. Master all 3 and then you will have it.
Seth Riggs worked with some of the biggest stars in the 20th Century. I hadn't heard of him before I first saw this video but up he came on you tube 'vocalizing' Michael Jackson. In one video he speaks of working with Michael while Quincy Jones was producing Thriller. He said Quincy wanted Michael to do 2 hrs per day of 'vocalising' before recording tracks for Thriller. He speaks glowingly of Michaels genius, commitment to his work and also of Michaels generosity.
I really don't know enough about singing technique to have any opinion about what is correct or better. I do know that it is a good idea to learn good and safe singing technique so you don't damage your vocal cords. Also so you can express yourself in song in a way that will resonate with your audience. Singing in tune, having power, resonance, subtlety, range, different colors, flexibility all seem to be things to strive towards developing.
I have spent many years singing and writing songs without training. For my songwriting it was fine but for actually performing my songs it I needed and still need to develop a satisfactory singing technique. The only way seems to work really hard at it. And learn everything you can so you can not get in your own way. Singing should appear really easy but it takes lots of work and lots of understanding for it to become easy.
Some of it is rhythm and phrasing, some of it is melody and harmony and some of it is the personality of the performer. The performer is telling a story. The song is his story and his/her aim is to tell that story as clearly and convincingly as is possible. It is like the performer has to become one with the audience and one with the song.
Just you know that "2 hours of vocalizing" is not at the same time, probably they were recording at the evening at vocalized 2-3 times before that 2 hours all together. If you vocalize 2 hour in 1 take you will lose your voice before you enter the booth.
th-cam.com/video/WGREQ670LrU/w-d-xo.html
I love how you 'fessed up to what you did - and WHY you did it (fear and insecurity). Really honest and a breath of fresh air. Nice to hear. Thanks. :)
Dan, I applaud your honesty on this subject. We surely don't have all the answers nor is there such a thing as a one-size-fits-all pedagogy. The reality I believe is we all have to get to a point where we have to figure this all out for ourselves. For example, I feel each kind of voice be it light weight voice (lyric) or a heavier weight voice (dramatic) has their own inherent advantages and disadvantages we have to overcome or learn to work with. How do you feel?
Great video. Sls has me singing beyond what I've ever dreamed possible and like you I've studied other methods and garnered what works for me discarding what doesn't. So I have developed for myself an eclectic regime of exercises that has made me the singer I am today. Unfortunately other teachers out there have the font of all knowledge syndrome and upload videos on TH-cam with titles like Why sls does not work. It has for me and I'm glad you are open to all available knowledge and would gladly recommend you to anyone wanting to learn methodology in this great art form. Cheers .
SLS transformed my voice in 4 months. I was diligent w exercises- 10 minutes daily. Not kidding my voice was transformed into a lively angelic voice w a wide range. Before- I could barely find a note. I mean--' I really could barely find a note.
Did you go to him personally, or did you follow something on youtube? Thanks!
I've been doing SLS for about 5 months now and I don't have much other point of reference because this is my first real go with a coach. Facts are though, I'm much happier with my range, my pitch and tone than I ever was before. I'm much more confident and I trust my tutor. I believe the reason we're doing SLS is that I have a bad habit of raising my larynx for higher notes and try to pull my chest voice up. I'm getting much better with my passaggio now.
What I'm not sure about is whether my tutor intends to move me onto other methods and educational tools when this approach has 'fixed' the problem, or if it's just a case of doing the same and same again. I hope not, but I do recall that I wanted to be able to sing like Chris Cornell and through doing the exercises to fix my larynx problem, the ability to do this is starting to come naturally. So that's pretty awesome!
What I like about your channel is that I don't feel like that approach is being poo-pooed, but I also like that when I visit your website I can find your very impressive CV and that I can trust your advice.
I'm glad you enjoyed the video Ian Webster. Thanks for watching.
I started using Seth Riggs' Singing For The Stars recently to improve my voice (I am an intermediate), and regardless of its advantages and disadvantages, it is very helpful in maintaining an even tone throughout my registers without having to tighten my belly hard or unnecessarily yell to sing higher.
Dr. Dan's got singing level speech ;)
Learned how to sing but listening to metal and then Chris Cornell.
Now I'm lacking the stamina that takes and having to relearn these other ways.
As far as I can tell so far, it still takes a lot of body engagement to hook support down low and carry it all the way up.
I believe your lowest and highest notes take the same support it you want your highs to have that full body to them.
Well stated, Dr. Dan. I've had the very same thoughts for a while now that SLS has good things to offer, but in and of itself, not complete. I'm definitely going to check out more of what you have to teach. You seem to have a very level-headed approach to singing. Very cool in my book!!
A trick : watch series on Flixzone. Me and my gf have been using it for watching loads of movies during the lockdown.
@Stetson Rodrigo Yea, have been using flixzone for months myself =)
What do you think of cvt?
Dr. Dan, I am really enjoying your videos. Question: is there a difference in the way that tenors like Pavarotti sing high notes and others? What I mean is it only the resonance that is different, or is the musculature used different?
I found myself attracted to SLS because it sounds like the easiest way to sing without straining your voice, as well as helping you utilize the uniquness of your own voice rather than subconciously copying the voice of your idols and influences. I am a novice in terms of singing, more of a natural talent rather than taught. I do, however, know I need to be taught. But my point is, even though I know very little about singing, my skepticisim about SLS grew when I went to Seth Riggs a teacher of the stars, website and noticed that there are several famous people whom he trained, who I have always considered things that irritated my ears on many of their song. Mostly, I noticed some of these famous people, who are of course, professionals, but they tend to have either a nasal tone or a whiny tone in many of their songs. I am not going to call names, as it would become a disupte started for someone who idolizes certain singers and tend to not hear any flaws. But I'm just putting this out there for others to open comment, if they ever notice the same. Or, maybe something is wrong with my ears or even my mind. But anyway, I even know some of these singers who I can never really understand what they are saying rather as in a mumbling sound, diction, enunciation, or other issues. In short, this makes me wonder if SLS is as great and it has elevevated so many people, whiy do so many of them have flaws that I seem to hear, and these are not addressed in SLS. I do want to believe that SLS is the path for me because I do think it offers just what I want in terms of technique, voice health, ptich, and so forth. However, I still have a degree of skepticism because of some of the people he listed who I think are professionals, but noticeably have some problems and should not sing certain songs.
Thanks, I love your approach and your respect for other methods. Ofcourse there are bad methods and the average student you are adressing can't sit through and filter out what is right or wrong. This is the job of us teachers. Let's just hope most of our fellow teachers/coaches keep up with all the new information and also that they have moral standards too!
with all due respect, if you are not a singer yourself, and have not had the experience as a professional singer you have no idea what the body goes through. Singing is a total body experience. There are certain muscles that the singer has developed to create a very fast air flow through the vocal bands, to create the pitch you are thinking. The upper body is a stress factor on the instrument itself which is in the neck. It would do well for anyone who sings, pop, jazz, etc. to learn how to sing classically first so that they trained the body to get you there in terms inhalation and exhalation and diction skills. There is this terrible urge for everyone to reinvent how things are done vocally, but if the body is not behind the kind of sound you make regardless of what it is, you’re going to put stress on the vocal cords which is very damaging. And this kind of damage is very prevalent today. Remember whatever your approach, the body sings for you.
With all due respect, I appreciate your perspective, and I agree that singing is indeed a total body experience. The classical approach to voice training has long-standing merit and has shaped the foundation of vocal techniques for many singers across various genres.
However, I'd like to highlight a nuance in our understanding of vocal training that may differ from your viewpoint. While a classical foundation can provide essential skills, it is not necessarily the one-size-fits-all solution for all singers.
As a seasoned professional singer and experienced singing voice specialist, I can affirm that singers often need to develop task (genre) specific techniques. This means that the training and muscular development required for singing pop, rock, jazz, or other contemporary styles may vary significantly from the classical technique. Research in modern vocal science supports this idea, showing that various genres often call for different vocal setups, breath management, resonance strategies, and stylistic nuances.
The risk of damage to the vocal folds does exist, as you've rightly pointed out, but it's not exclusive to non-classical techniques. It's the responsibility of vocal coaches, including myself, to guide singers in developing safe and effective techniques tailored to their specific genre and individual needs.
Your passion for the integrity of vocal technique is admirable, and I believe our shared goal is to nurture voices in the healthiest way possible. I hope this offers some insight into the multifaceted nature of vocal training in today's diverse musical landscape.
Thanks. I am just starting on vocal training along with exercises from SLS so it is interesting to hear your view on it.
Glad it was helpful!
Thanks for your video. What you say is exactly what I think. I am now looking for the techniques of bel canto and speech level singing to explore about how to use my voice
Y T, the following video may prove helpful - th-cam.com/video/147vNeTN5Ss/w-d-xo.html
Another intelligent and candid analysis of SLS
Dr Dorian
Love your openness and approach! From singing teacher to singing teacher ;) Greetings from Germany
Refreshing attitude. Gives me more confidence in your instruction. Reminds me of your quote from Emerson regarding principles vs. methods.
Dr Dan's Voice Essentials Thank you. I will check it out.
Ok, so, you went on and on about what it is and that it is not a "be-all, end-all" to modern singing, but where the example?
Is there difference in sound between sls and mixed voice?
I actually studied with Seth NOT just his home program. Trust me 30 minutes with Seth and you WILL know.
Great video! From what I've seen, the biggest problem (at least for most adult male voices) is that the person is not taught how to "mix" vocalis with crico-thyroid muscles (or it may be very difficult for most to learn). From there, I learned how to sing C-T dominant modal. SLS (and others), AFAICT, just bypasses this by teaching weak muscles all around, which might be fine with certain genres and amplification, but I wanted to know how to sing with a full, rich, deep, etc. voice, and the SLS exercises just seemed to promote vocalis dominance, which I already had! It also seems to encourage nasality, which again might be okay for certain genres, but it's not the kind of sound I want to get stuck with. lol
Artistically speaking, singing is using your voice in a musical manner to communicate ideas and emotions to an audience. Technically, however, singing is nothing more than sustained speech over a greater pitch and dynamic range.
The key to singing well is the ability to always maintain a speech level production of tone, one that stays connected from one part of your range to another. You don’t sing like you speak, but you need to keep the same comfortable, easily produced vocal posture you have when you speak so that you don’t reach up for high notes or press down for low ones.
There’s no great mystery involved. But although it’s easy to understand, it takes time and patience to coordinate everything so that you can do it well. A teacher needs to know how to get each of his students to sing through his or her range in a connected, easy manner, without any “breaks” or sudden changes of tone quality.
This process does not include anatomy or direct manipulation. Correct method and the ear do most, if not all, of the work. You don't need to think about twenty different things every time you open your mouth. It doesn't matter if you sing pop, rock, opera or musical theatre. You should sing with a technique that allows you to just relax and concentrate on performing - which is what it's all about anyway, right?
What is interesting is that the best opera singers (of yesterday and today) sing in a clear, speech-level manner that lets you understand their words all the way through their ranges. This is the same ideal that people listen for in any type of good singing.
th-cam.com/video/WGREQ670LrU/w-d-xo.html
Curious to know if you’re familiar with Roxie Francis (who is AMAZING and was one of my trainers) or Per Bristow. So many methods you could get lost! Still trying to find myself and my real voice even at my ripe old age of 34. I tend to get a little “lost in the woods” as it were. When did you really and truly find your own voice? I’m not sure whether I’m alto or mezzo. Everyone I have worked with says Alto, but my range says otherwise. Sorry if this is all over the place but I have several thoughts at once. Any insight would help, how many different influences have you had?
Ally, I think most singers are on a never-ending journey of self-discovery. We never actually arrive. I encourage you to not get too bogged down in voice classification. Perhaps this video about voice classification will prove helpful - th-cam.com/video/mkKsB3fpMH4/w-d-xo.html
I'm an opera singer student and I study Bel Canto. I don't mean to despise SLS but I think it's super limited and not a good fit for everyone. I don't have a good natural singing voice, I learnt to sing and I only can produce an operatic sound so that sounds impossible for me and honestly I don't care much about it
Lesther Miranda, the following video about Bel Canto may prove helpful - th-cam.com/video/147vNeTN5Ss/w-d-xo.html
bel canto and SLS is not the same thing. But lies on the same idea, bel canto is with a stronger diapraghm and and with a lot more resonance, but the basic idea is the same. Though you need different scales for each of that.
Vocal research needs to do some randomized studies using different techniques and then find which group sings better. You cannot argue the effectiveness of a singing technique based on just physiology and expert opinion. .
I'm with an SLS coach right now. Ive been taken lesson for about 2 months. She focuses so much on vowel closure and I feel awkward and constrained. Is this just because I'm a new singer learning new concepts?
Every singing teacher has something to offer...some more than others. Open communication with your teacher will ensure your lessons provide you with the best possible outcomes. I think the following videos will be helpful - th-cam.com/play/PLZFx6cLexy5FPjc2hy4NysR0LW7AmYeMH.html
Ok, came here to figure out what is SLS, ended up listening opinions of some guy about SLS, still not knowing what SLS is.
where can i speak 1:1 with a singing instructor?
Singing for the Stars is unfinished; SLS itself is complete if introduced to you by someone who has passed all Seth's Test. It is hard to say you totally understand a method without going all the way through it. It's like picking up the books that are being taught at Harvard and then state you got everything Harvard has to offer.
Yes, that booklet is NOT a good representation of what SLS became or what Seth Riggs really teaches. SLS did not really start formalizing its pedagogy until early 2000 and even then it took a long time to standardize it. And I agree, one cannot study SLS from books and expect to understand it without following up for deeper information. Speech level singing is a phrase that describes the basic position of the larynx which is the same thing Dr. Dan teaches- the voice box should not be constricted or too high or too low. SLS is just that--- It's actually pretty clear that Dan adopted concepts from SLS because I recognize it from his videos. True many more "traditional" more "academia-oriented" bel canto sounds (adding '"y" before the "ah" in the 5 tone scale) are incorporated but essentially what he does is very similar to what Seth does. Seth uses a 5 tone "ah" as a diagnostic tool for assessing a student's current state of balance between muscle and air and their understanding of vocal tract shaping and laryngeal stability. I know this because I have taken lessons from Seth and some of his inner circle coaches. Dr. Dan gets more technical about explaining the anatomy and mechanics (which Seth will do) but mostly SLS focuses on training singers with exercises to promote transitioning through passagios/bridges/transitions without allowing the nervous system to interfere during the building process. And...as with ANY pedagogy uses shaping of vowel sounds and enlists various consonants (m,n) to guide and strengthen. It's interesting though...yes Seth teaches about fach...however, he never mentioned in any master classes or private lessons that the "sweet spot" was a person's chest voice. He does not distinguish chest voice as being the part of the voice that is "easy to sing in" and hence the "sweet spot". I mean, I get that Dr. Dan is using the chest voice as a starting place to discover a singer's basic fach, but I don't prefer to send a message that it always will be the best part of a singer's voice-especially for new and inexperienced singers who may not have a context for interpreting what he means. Seth was first and foremost a classical singer and started his career teaching classical performers. He also worked with musical theater singers. He later branched into the pop/R&B industry. He always had professional classical artists on his roster though. True SLS coaches (I admit there are weak ones, good ones and great ones) do not distinguish between classical and contemporary while the voices are being developed as instruments. That's a whole other thing. Many teachers of the classical genre train "classical styling" into students' voices which can end up rendering them mediocre before even giving them a chance to know their true unaffected voices. The idea of SLS is to preserve the natural quality of every singers unique voice throughout the range which with SLS students is commonly multiple usable octaves affording them the ability to sing many different types of music. Incidentally, if you have ever heard Josh Groban refer to a "voice teacher" who introduced him to David Foster....well, yeah...it was Seth Riggs.
Well actually Angela Bradford I had the privilege of living with Seth Riggs for 8 years in his Hancock Park home, and later his Koreatown home, where he currently resides; and he would simply say if he could go back and re-brand his method, he would call it "Friendly Compression." You are correct in some aspects of what you are stating. But vowels are related to the vocal fold conduction, for they need oscillation to exist. Consonants are more so related to pressure and stresses. Simply google the definition of a Constonant - "basic speech sound in which the BREATH IS AT LEAST PARTLY OBSTRUCTED and which can be COMBINED with a vowel to form a syllable." There for consonants are stresses in air flow, or blockage of air release; which are formed by tongue, teeth, and lips only! Consonances can be created without oscillation. So how does (M,N) "guide" any growth in the muscles that form a singers ability to oscillate sound frequencies; when they are simply just obstructions to the breath release? More so (M,N) hold the air back longer than plosives like (B,P); and don't need a vowel for them to exist. As in "B" is pronounced "B-UH" and "P" is pronounced "P-UH" which keeps a singer from isolating specific vowels. Then there is "Y" the sometimes a vowel and sometimes a, Partial Breath Obstruction, consonant. Its the most vowel a consonant can be, with its quick elongating of the mouth on an obstructed "uh," having absolutely no value assisting compression of "uh" like that of "mum;" "uh" surrounded by two nicely balanced sounds effects of straight compression. While "Y" can even be seen as a dangerous tiny plosive "uh", for it creates a quick "Y-UH" sound in "Y-uh-ey" for "yay" and "y-uh-es" in "yes." Its better to train a singer with (M,N), not because it "guides" but because it "isolates" the vowel within in an obstructed breath release, it isolates a vowel after an evenly balanced compression sound effect; focusing the singer on the very musculature, that holds the various oscillations, that can grow a singer's control over vocal fold conduction at various frequencies. (M,N) are straight forward stresses, pressure building, not needing the "uh" vowel to exist. Other consonances like "s" act like (M,N), in that it doesn't need "uh" to exists, but lacks the compression needed to build resistance on the muscles that come together to hold a vowel on pitch; as mention with the problem of using "Y" as a builder. All muscles need some form of resistance to grow and strengthen; ask this of any athlete or body builder. Once muscles are coordinated enough to hold pure vowels, all consonances can be thrown in front of them; simply by changing the mouth in the same manner as one would when speaking, this then creates singing as we know it... I am truly impressed by your response, but its important to note that any and all consonances are created solely in the mouth, where as vowels are in the manipulation of the folds; and until a singer has the ability to fully isolate the two, separate from each other, that singer isn't fully developed and runs a risk of loss of voice in a professional setting. It truly is important to not over complicate nature, just to show off how one is different in approach nor how learnt one can be. "The Rise and Fall of Bel Canto," a book Seth made me read, which is out of print, published 1821; wish I could find a copy for myself, for it explains how conventional teachers ruin the fundamentals of the voice, simple to show off how they differ. There is the straight forward path, and then there is the scenic route to all destinations. The more paths learned, the longer it takes someone to do something, and the more complications they add; all increase higher risk of failure... Seth Riggs is a graduate from John Hopkins; and his more simpler approached of just isolating vowels only, within "Friendly Compression," has given me the ability to save singers from surgery. Surgeries which their doctors thought could not be avoided, through vocal edge therapy alone. I only share, for I believe everyone has the right to this knowledge. No one should be held back by ego nor money constraints.
Mark Hayes thank you so much for cleaning up my act 😄
Lol Seth pulled a book off his shelf when I was there and told me to read it but I never did. I will definitely do so now. Yes I recall that he attended Peabody at Hopkins- (I’m a native Marylander as well but met Seth at a Master’s class in Silicon Valley when SLS was taking off as a bigger brand and he recruited me after the class. I was in an completely different industry at the time. I dabbled and became a kind of very serious hobby singer with an ability to get students off and running without making them sound weird;) I’m in the healthcare industry now and back in Maryland near Seth’s hometown (Seth trivia) but still help the occasional singer when an opportunity presents itself. I am currently helping my 13 year old autistic son (budding baritone who is already over 6ft tall) navigate his huge voice. That’s how I came across this post because I have been out of the loop and decided to brush up on what’s going on in the singing world.
Thank you for taking the time to write that response to me. That was very kind of you. And- who doesn’t love free information? Haha. When I chose the word “guide” I was very lazily attempting to describe the experiential piece of the instructor- student interaction. Like the use of the edgy “m” to assist a student in getting through passagios without blowing a gasket lol. I was trying to talk about nervous system stuff. You of course make an expert observation that I was very clumsy and not nearly detailed enough in my explanation. In this type of setting no assumptions can be made as far as context goes and details and distinctions are an essential part of the formula. In a world where words, language, letters and sounds are the tools of the trade, one must be mindful of what she says. Cheers!
@@MjHayzy Hi who is the author of The Rise and Fall of Bel Canto? I cant seem to find information about that book.
doc... i really need to know how to mastering super headvoice register.. can you give me the video of it? please its really neccessary to me
+Dr Dan's Voice Essentials i cant find a superHeadvoice method ... how can i mastering SuperHeadvoice.... at beginning i cant do it.. but im training everyday... at the day 3 on the morning.... i hit the high light note... but its only going for 3 minutes... at the day 4... it can last for 20mnit... at the day 5.. i can do it almost for 4 hours... at the day 6.. i cant do it at the afternoon.. that register was fully dissapeared.... why doctor? pleaseeee answer.. its really help me... do you have any personal contact? like whats app org wechat? so i can send my sample to you.. ita really important for me as a singer.. i can mastering all register.. except whistle and superHeadvoice... theres a mission for me that i not yet fulfill
So what is Speech level singing? I thought that's what this video was supposed to be talking about?
you smart and humble. thanks
I appreciate that!
Wow this man trained the legend the king Michael Jackson
He's the reason why MJ lost his range as he aged.
Really?!??
For balance: MJ was a great singer before Riggs trained him. Nobody knows that Riggs caused him to lose range and it is pretty unlikely.
@@RachelGerrard That makes sense of everything. MJ did sound different.
@@marka2773 He taught Sohyang and her vocal range is insane.
Wonderful video! I agree 100%
I don't think one single technique should be used all the time.
Agree with you in terms of the fact that SLS has a lot of good stuff on bridging the passagio, but I found a lot of the TH-cam SLS teachers have the exact Vocal-God attitude you're talking about and it's a shame. That hasn't been my experience with SLS at all - both SLS teachers I had were really open to new ideas and helped me understand how their method integrated into my Estill training (which is really where my heart lies).
Do you teach Speech level singing
Do you do online lessons?
You didn’t take lessons from an SLS teacher? I went through SLS programs and when I got stuck, I went to an SLS coach in Phoenix and took lessons from her for 4 years and even someone like Micheal Jackson gets corrected while doing exercises. Now my voice is at a place where I never thought was possible. You need someone trained to hear when you go wide. At least that was my experience.
Who was your coach in Phoenix? Thanks!
@@EMILYCOLEOFFICIAL Yup - It was Stephanie Swann... She was INCREDIBLE... If you heard the before and after of my voice you would be amazed.... I am... When I first started taking lessons from her I had done singing success from brett manning... which improved my range but she balanced my resonance, got me through my next passagio and taught me to cover properly through the bridge.
you are the man!
Thank you so much!👍
You're welcome Miguel Angel Martinez. Thanks for watching.
You are missing the point of Seth. He is only explain that at an early age to start develop the bridge. Even an awesome singer Like Michael Bolton went to Seth years later after his voice stated failing on him. Michael Bolton was an unusual case he really did it his way and it did tire his voice. I do compliment you that there is not one hard fast rule to learning to sing. And as we both know some just sing without any training at all incredibly. I do admit Seth does come across a little hot headed in his interview videos but hey he is and old man now and has coached all the greatest singers in our generation. Old people at times can get a little kind of irritable or come across as didactic in some ways I think its just and old man that has helped so many great singers achieve success. There is a big difference from teaching singing and teaching singers to be successful great artists of our time. Please do that that in to consideration.
hhhmmmm speech level singing.. where to start.. My first point is that the resonance of the notes within the 12-TET scale when A4 is set at 440Hz (standard pitch) do not seem to correlate with the voices natural relaxed resonance., or talking pitch.. This is what the 432Hz hoppla is about, also called Verdi pitch... Tuning to around A4=432Hz with our 12-TET system seem to fit most voices when it comes to relaxed throat feeling..
I tried different tunings and at A4=432Hz i can sing high wihtout feeling much tension in the throat.. When teh pitch is increased to 440Hz you tend to shift the entire 12-TET scale up an entire key .. What this does is that I can sing a E4 comftable in middle register at 432Hz but at 440Hz that note is halfway into head register.. Most people without a great ear or pitch will often sing flat of 440Hz, not sharp.. That because the placement of the notes at A4=440Hz is placed so far north of the relaxed 432Hz pitch..
Is not just the passaggios notes allthough those are most affected.. Even my C4 (middle register is nice at 435Hz (-20 cents), but weird and uncomftable at 440Hz). And head notes at F#4,G4,G#4 are much easier to find the right air pressure and larynx placement or throat tilt..
There is a clip here on youtube where a choir conductor explains and demonstrate the difference between 432Hz (verdi tuning) and 440Hz tuning when the choir is singing a classic piece of Giusepipi Verdi.. look it up..
I am a deep baritone and E4 gets within reach with a mid resonance tone at 432Hz. At 440Hz I need to change gears more towards a lighter head resonance function. It is rather difficult to balance the voice to get that E4 correct without pulling chest" or going into falsetto..
For a lighter baritone that note would be F4 (my leadsinger in the band) and for a brighter tenor that note would be F#4. A note that Verdi wrote his choir pieces to hit for the tenors and an octave above (F#5) for the bright sopranos.
The previous standard pitch in Europe was A4=435Hz from 1859 to the late 1930s. That is as high you can go before you notes start getting a weird placement for the notes within the 12-TET scale, and in my opinion what we should have kept as standard pitch... That pitch was chosen because operasingers at that time seem to struggle less than at the higher 440-447Hz pitches, This was for a wide mix of different operas and vocal classes. I have not been able to find any such considarations when the 440Hz was chosen as standard pitch for A4..
I compared music at 440Hz and 432Hz and the latter is much more relaxing and soothing.. ( I tend to not compare them directly as the memory of one pitch would affect the other if you hear them immediately after eachother),, and it is not just a matter of going down in pitch.. I listen to classcial music at 442Hz (typical european orchester pitch), ~ 430Hz (romantic pitch),, and the new baroque pitch at 415Hz. And 430Hz is calmer than 415Hz which is a G#4 when A4 is the standard 440Hz..
Also voices sound more "true" as the color of the voice sounds more similar to our talking voice at 432-435Hz.,, not displaced as it is at 440Hz... Also most meditation and humming from around the globe does not seem to fall into our 440Hz tuned system..
Why am I writting this.. Because I feel it is relevant for singing coaches to get the aspect of tuning pitch into their mindset and not just conform to a standard set back in the early 50s that to my experience does not correspond well to our human vocal instrument...
Fascinating. Thanks for sharing
Bullshit, you are so down the musical conspiracy theory's I don't even know where to begin. I know this whole thing about specific Hz but those are just BS. For of all there were SEVERAL tunings of history. It was not only about the place of A4 but also between the intervals. Well tempered, Young temperament and Equal temperament, which are all documented properly.
Second this 432 is a more relaxed for throat is just bullshit as it is. The human voice box doesn't care what the tuning is, since the dawn of humanity there were no tunings or ancient tunings when hitting two sticks together, there weren't even proper instuments like today. The human voice depending on your level of study and vocal fach only cares about whether biologically you could resonate that note or not BASED ON THE LENGHT OF THE VOCAL CHORDS AND TRACK. Have nothing to with wether the A4 is 440 or 432. Of course A4 is more relaxed with 432 than 440 because there are a 8Hz difference, because IT IS LOWER, has nothing to do with magic tunings. It is more relaxed because it is lower, BUT SO IS EVERY NOTE not just the A.
It also becomes bullshit since most of the 20th century was with the 440 tuning. There were a lot of singers who did JUST FINE with this new tuning, because 8hz of a difference isn't that much of a difference from a singing technical standpoint so doesn't matter anyway. If you need 8Hz more to hit a note you are far away from that note anway since you have to be able to scale above it which a lot more than 8Hz.
BTW the "Verdi tuning" is not just about 432, since at the time of Verdi in the 19th century there was the Young's temperament which is constinsts of many more things than just lowering the hz of the A4 and the whole scales.
You can read more about this here: www.math.uwaterloo.ca/~mrubinst/tuning/tuning.html
"no method can give you everything".
You really should read Complete Vocal Techique haha
Great Quote!!!!
so basically you like to yell and sing in opera style?
You're like the Bruce Lee of Vocal studies.
You didn't quite answer the question of the video.
Nice Shirt, man! :-)
Thank you again.
i think ken does that!
What Seth Riggs figured out, as have others, is some aspects of what was generally known by most good teachers from the bel canto era. They knew it all back then when singing was an art. Vocal pedagogy is a lost art. We don't need a method or an eclectic mix of methods. We need to work with the literature of the teachers who did know it all and get back to that. If it won't work for opera, it's not complete.
geez,your speking range is as high as a woman's! You can prob sing the last key of a piano. I'll bet there's no bass singers teaching singing lessons. hahah
He's definitely a high tenor. From the little grit on his voice, with his higher articulation points, though, I bet his range is something like B2-D5 in chest voice, and can probably get up to around C6 in falsetto. He actually has a quite dynamic speaking voice (very broad) but sits a little high on the averages.
@@johndeeregreen4592 yeah, there's a few baritone coaches That can sing Hi Pitches But the tambor is always not the same Compared to someone who already has a high voice like Steve Perry Oh well You can't have it all
I want to master sprechgesang
+Dr Dan's Voice Essentials I have had classical training for some time and it was good but they taught to sing with an open throat and louder which was different from speech singing.
Guys do not be confusd with Space Launch System,. otherwise you might end up with in the deep space Rocket Science in the process with learning 🤣🤳
Nice shirt
We learned more in the past 50 years about voice, but man our song wing writing has since deteriorated.
So I can here to learn about Speech Level Singer and got seven minutes of nothing.
Down right nasty. love it lol
i like your voice lol and that accent is cute (no homo)
Thanks for watching Marcos Flores!
no problem man!
sounds like Sprechstimme to me...
There is One who knows all the answers about human voice. GOD! :)
lol
Of course, He created it
Dr dan: have you seen brett Manning 's singing success program?
+Dr Dan's Voice Essentials what I have noticed with Brett Manning is that while he is an SLS based teacher, he has borrowed from other schools of thought in the creation of The Singing Success series. for example, his exercises practice with the lyrics in three positions, High mid and low. within the Estill Method, referred to as Twang, sob, and speech level. also some of his chord closure and edge training weren't in the original. He also did very well with stylistic applications. while I am not a purist and totally agree with you in learning from different schools of thought, I would say that Brett Manning brought a lot to the table and helped to evolve some of the limitations associated with classic sls.
Traductions in spanish please
i dont think mj really did this from watching him sing
You could have said everything in just 3 words "Learn from Everyone"
too much prelude. not enough substance
Well that was pointless.
It sounds like you're trying to say you are superior to Seth Riggs No way