Play nice, dears…

EDIT (December of 2017): This blog post was originally published in 2011, and is based primarily on my experience working with my late voice teacher, Lynne Vardaman. Though I now know more about the singing voice, I leave this article up as a record of my previous work.

N.B. Throughout this article I use specific terminology (such as full fold {FF}, partial fold {PF} [1], and optimal antagonism [2]) that is more thoroughly explained in my article, Countertenor Technique: An Introduction to Concepts. You may find it helpful to read that article as a primer for understanding this article. Throughout this article, C4 indicates middle C. C3-B3 is the octave below, C5 is an octave higher than middle C, etc…

Since my previous articles in this series on countertenor relevant singing technique have been rather general in nature, I wanted to write this month about a specific exercise. Building on the information introduced in April’s article Countertenor Technique: An Introduction to Concepts, the exercise I outline here, called the flex, is one that reveals hidden mental prejudices that work against countertenors, builds stability and an authentic sound into the lower range of the countertenor voice, and eventually helps to bridge the transition (a shortening of the vibrating portion of the folds even as the folds remain stretched) that should take place between Bb4 and B4. My hope is that the inclusion of audio examples in this article will help to explain any questions that arise, and spark a conversation about what the countertenor voice is capable of and how it might be trained. This article is written for a student working with a teacher able to diagnose any basic technical problems that might arise.

How to Think, in Brief

A quick note about the ideal psychological approach taken by the student when executing this exercise, what I call the singer’s “Organizing Principle,” a topic that will be further unpacked in future articles: What are you thinking when you do this exercise, and do those thought patterns lead to stable, healthy, and dependably easy vocal production? In his book, Psyche and Soma [3], Cornelius Reid wrote that immediately before onset, a singer must mentally clarify their intended pitch, vowel, and intensity. If these commands are clear, the well trained voice cannot help but respond in a healthy, balanced, and optimally antagonistic manner. This seems like a stupidly obvious thing to say, but when singing a series of exercises, how many of us fail to remain mentally ‘ahead’ of each new iteration? Many voice teachers have issues with Reid’s ideas, but I hope that this much of his pedagogy can be universally accepted. The flex was taught to me by my former teacher, the late Lynne Vardaman. She learned it from her teacher Dan Merriman, who was a student of Cornelius Reid’s at Juilliard. Lynne and Dan did significant work to build on Reid’s concept of “pitch, vowel, and intensity,” and their work will find its way into future articles on this website. For now, do this exercise with Reid’s organizing principle in mind.Countertenors face additional mental hurdles. I believe that one’s thoughts reveal one’s subconscious prejudices, and that we only attempt to do what we are disposed to think is possible. To be an effective singer, a countertenor must first overcome the thought that what they are doing is abnormal, unnatural, or weak. The ultimate goal of this exercise is to cultivate a partial fold mechanism action that has the same stable and optimally antagonistic muscular action found more commonly in the full fold mechanism of a tenor, baritone, or bass. This stability allows the vocal folds to readjust as needed to sing optimally on just about any pitch in the student’s range; the end result is that no pitch feels high, low [4], or difficult. Rather, they all feel stable and similar. Done well, this exercise will force the countertenor student to change their thinking about what it means to sing both high and low pitches.

The Flex

The exercise itself is very simple; the point is to execute it in a specific manner. The flex was not originally designed with countertenors in mind, but it has proven very useful in addressing countertenor-specific issues. What follows is the male version (and countertenors are… that’s right, male). The female version is identical, but starts on A3, ascends to Eb4, and descends to F3. I am presenting this as an exercise for countertenors, but all students, regardless of voice type or gender should work on this. A non-countertenor male singer may not ever achieve the full engagement of the partial fold mechanism that you hear in the recorded examples, but it is a very useful exercise nonetheless. Female singers will find the flex useful for unifying their full and partial fold mechanisms, and they may find it much easier than their male counterparts. As I outlined in my article, How to Best Practice Practicing Singing, do not attempt to succeed at this exercise by compromising the goals of the exercise. Think about that a moment. Read the goals I list below, trust in the process I suggest, and discover what the exercise is. Do the work, and you will love the result. Beginning and intermediate students, think of this as this something to work on for a while (on the order of months or a year) before you can dependably execute it.

The Basics

Figure 1. The Male Flex. Click to enlarge.

The male flex (C#3-F#3) at a reasonable tempo for beginners.

The male flex (E3) at a reasonable tempo for advanced students.

1) Sing [a] (like father) with your full fold {FF} mechanism (chest voice [1]).

2) Slide in your full fold mechanism through an ascending octave.

3) Sing the higher octave with your partial fold {PF} mechanism (head voice [1] – you will switch to your partial fold mechanism prior to the octave, although this transition point will change depending on the starting pitch of the exercise. Listen to the audio sample to get a sense of this.)

4) Slide through a descending octave.

5) Sing the original pitch with your full fold mechanism (again, you will switch to your full fold mechanism at some point before singing the lower octave).

6) Repeat chromatically from C#3 through Bb3 then chromatically back to B2 or lower. (See fig 1.)

Goals

1) Sing the same vowel the entire time.

2) Base your tempo on how well the optimally antagonistic engagement holds in your partial fold mechanism. You will likely start faster and work down to the tempo on the second audio sample. A teacher’s ears are vital to determine how fast you should do this exercise.

3) You are not making music. Do not try to phrase the exercise, back away from the high note gracefully, or otherwise mess with the physiological action in service of an aesthetic. Engage (optimal antagonism) your full fold mechanism, slide with engagement, remain engaged in your partial fold mechanism, slide, repeat. If you cannot remain engaged as you begin the slide, work on just that part first. Lynne used to say, “Slide to stay the same,” and “Sing eight in the climate of one, not one in the climate of eight.” Go for a consistent approach, not a beautiful sound. If your voice pops between full and partial fold mechanisms, that’s fine. Do not try to craft a perfect slide at the expense of an open and optimally engaged partial fold action.

Notes for Teachers: What makes it complex

1) Fear of the Chest Voice: Many countertenors will shy away from working on their full fold mechanism. A very few countertenors actually have the excuse that their larynx never developed properly and that those pitches are actually impossible to sing. Most of them are just making excuses for themselves, likely because they are powerfully self-defined by their ability to sing high! Tell them that developing a healthy full fold mechanism, especially in the B2-Bb3 range does not negate their value as a countertenor, does not hurt their countertenor voice, and will build stability and amplitude into their countertenor range. Exercising their partial fold mechanism in this ‘full out’ manner will not ruin their ability to produce quiet, sensitive, vibrato-less sounds, just like doing bicep curls does not commit one to using their arm muscles in just one manner. This exercise simply expands the range of intensity available to the voice.

2) Laryngal Stability: The larynx will, especially in beginning to intermediate students, tend to rise significantly as the pitch rises, compromising the stability that allows for optimal cricothyroid/thyroarytenoid engagement. (If you have made it this far, still not read Countertenor Technique: An Introduction to Concepts, and were confused by the previous sentence, please give it a look). If your student currently sings with a lot of tension and a high laryngal position in their countertenor voice, remind them that the point of this exercise is to do something different.

3) But My Head Voice is Weak/Precious/Beautiful: The prejudice that the partial fold mechanism (head voice) is ‘weaker’ than the full fold (chest voice) will tend to cause a disengagement of the thyroarytenoid muscles during the initial slide, guaranteeing that the partial fold sound will be, in fact, weak. Of course, a fully engaged partial fold approach will never match the amplitude of a fully engaged full fold mechanism; countertenors on the whole are not the loudest of singers. That being said, countertenors can always build more efficiency, clarity, and amplitude into their technique. When working on the flex, stick with the importance of this initial full fold mechanism slide. Remember, slide to stay the same, and preserve the engaged quality of the full fold approach throughout the flex. As an experiment, have your student slide C#3-C#4 (or higher) entirely in their full fold mechanism. Then have them immediately sing the flex, preserving the same quality of the full fold slide. If your student is sliding well, but having an impossible time connecting the full fold slide to the partial fold, have them flex [a]-[u]-[a].

Figure 2. Help your student find their partial fold approach from B3-E4. Click to enlarge.

4) Help them find their partial fold B3-E4: The long term goal of this exercise is to develop an optimally engaged partial fold mechanism, especially in the range B3-E4. This will be difficult at first, especially if your student is used to sounding weak and quiet in that range. As the iterations of the exercise ascend, the top pitch will likely become easier at F4 and above. Use success in this range to inform a similarly optimally engaged partial fold action between B3 and E4. It is possible that your student will initially not be able to tell the difference between a light full fold (light chest voice) and partial fold approach (head voice) in the B3-E4 range. If so, have them flex from F3-F4, and then sing a descending chromatic scale in that partial fold mechanism (see Fig. 2). Once they experience that it is possible to sing those pitches with their partial fold mechanism, have them flex from C#3 again.

5) Making it an encouraging, gradual process: As any good teacher knows, be prepared for your student to fail at this for a while. Try to isolate the part of the process they are missing, and address it step by step. Is your student singing one as though they are afraid of eight? Is your student forgetting to slide with an engaged full fold voice? Is your student ‘letting go’ of their optimal engagement when they sing eight? Walk them through the process; they will improve! Since this exercise requires not only a slow development of muscle strength, but also a change in thinking, it is important to allow your student to gradually grasp these concepts. It is fine, for example, if they consistently sing the wrong vowel on eight, if they are making good progress on the full fold slide. Address one issue at a time.

Advanced Variations

Once the flex can be done well, build the following variations into your student’s routine:

1) Do all of these exercises on the vowel [I] (as in bit or sit).

2) Play with extending the range so that your highest frequency flex is from Eb4-Eb5, and your series of iterations ends with the lowest frequency flex starting on an A3 or lower.

3) Add these scales and arpeggios (see Figures 3 and 4). If you are able to flex these variations in a stable manner, the shortening of the vibrating length of fold (between Bb4 and B4) that I mentioned at the beginning of this article should automatically take place.

Figure 3. Countertenor Flex Variation #1. Click to enlarge.

Figure 4. Countertenor Flex Variation #2. Click to enlarge.

Footnotes

1) What are “chest” and “head” registers? In my article, Countertenor Technique: An Introduction to Concepts, I suggest that those words elicit from the singer not only a physiological action, but also a qualitative judgement re: the degree of optimal engagement of the cricothyroid and thyroarytenoid muslces. My pedagogy for countertenors is built on the idea that the degree of engagement between these muscle groups can be controlled independently of the length of vocal fold used (the full or partial mechanisms). To directly link “full fold” and “partial fold” approaches with “chest” and “head” voice does not honor the manner in which the latter words prejudice us against making healthy countertenor sounds.

2) I explain the idea of “optimally antagonistic singing” in my article, Countertenor Technique: An Introduction to Concepts. In short, I believe that the physical action that produces the human singing voice is, in the most basic sense, the result of two opposing groups of muscles that act antagonistically against each other. Just like the forearm is moved by means of the antagonistic action of the biceps and triceps (that is, depending on the motion either the bicep or tricep will dominate, however, the opposing muscle is typically engaged to a lesser degree to provide stability and control), the cricothyroid and thyroarytenoid muscles are capable of a wide variety of antagonistic engagement. For any given pitch in either the full or partial fold mechanisms, there is an optimal range of antagonism between these two muscle groups. One will typically dominate, but the other is, to a degree, still engaged.

3) Reid, Cornelius. Voice: Psyche and Soma. New York: Joseph Patelson Music House, 1975. ISBN 0-915282-00-3

4) Throughout this article, I default to speaking of pitches as being either “high” or “low,” and exercises as either “descending” or “ascending.” The correct terminology should be that a pitch has either a high or low “frequency.” Regardless of our perceptions while singing, sung pitches do not occupy physical space, and as such, one cannot literally be higher than another. To think of pitch in this manner (that high pitches are high in space) can contribute directly to issues of laryngal stability, generally undermining multiple elements of an optimally antagonistic vocal technique. Higher frequency pitches are, basically, attained by vibrating the vocal folds against one another more quickly. Up and down, high and low, has little to do with it. In the service of making this article more easily read, I have used the older, if potentially misleading terms “high” and “low.”