At local forum there was a typical debate about head voice and range expansion. A CVT fan said that there is no such thing as "pulling chest" and that "chest voice" equals to CVT overdrive. But registers can't be directly mapped into CVT modes! What do you think?

Ps. Go, are you samples ready?-)

I think it's important to recognize that a "register" is only a series of notes - an interval. It doesn't have any specific sound. Ex. A4 can be sung in many diferent ways but it's still the same "register". It's important to seperate "register" from sound.

Smart to point out Sofus. BTW- I am still waiting on you to email me;)

I agree with sofus as it´s a CVT idea, so it´s really helpfull with CVT methology, but for other singing methods the idea of registers is still valuable, even when you want to describe sound. For example, head voice doesn´t have the restrained sound of curbing, it´s more delicate and light, but they teach you how to go pass compressed neutral to curbing, but in another terms, mixed voiced being one of them. But if you want "pure" head voice/compressed neutral, you still can use it.

About the samples, I´ve completely forgot about it! I´m not even practicing that much singing nowadays so I don´t think I´ll do it.

Go,

I can see your point. Though in my experience it most often causes confusion when using the same term for a register and a sound.

It's very important to define what is meant with a term when comunicating - especially between student and teacher. For instance if headvoice, chestvoice, mix and falsetto are both a register and a sound then confusion can easily appear. For instance:

"I want to be able to use headvoice and falsetto in my chestvoice but also I want to have a chestvoice and mixvoice in my headvoice."

I know it's a bit overexadurated but the point is, that in my opinion it's important to seperate register from sound or at best defining very concretely what is meant with a term to avoid confusion.

John,

As you pointed out yourself - you would have to read the CVT book to understand it's terminology.

Well since that will probably not happen anytime soon, I respectfully bow out. :)

CVT makes sense if you use CVT and I think Cathrine did an EXCELLENT job creating a systematic approach to breaking the voice down into components. I read the book about 5 years ago and really enjoyed it, but I do not personally use any of the terminology because it wouldn't make sense for me to mix another system into what I already teach. But I do respect what she's done and I know its helped a lot of people.

I personaly love CVT, asmuch as i love RYV.
But people keep forgetting that terminology is just terminology, if you call a sound falsetto or headvoice wont change how the sound sounds it will still sound the same.
The thing that matters is that everyone using a certain terminology is on the same page as how to group and call sounds.
The human voice is capable of so many diffrent sounds, soundcolors that it is impossible to group them. Thats why when working with terminology soundexamples is a must.

Tobad you wont read CVT John king your really missing out on a musthave to your vocaltechnique collection. Almost everytechnique outthere has it's valid points, and CVT has tons

Oh I didn't say I wouldn't read it ever. I just have a 1200 page CompTIA A+ book to study for the next month. :)

Hi everyone,

I am a big fan of RYV, though new to the message board, and am a student of CVT so it was really great and helpful to see this thread.

I personally like the terminology that CVT has but, there is lots of great stuff in RYV, and it has been helpful to hear what more experienced CVT users think is what in RYV in CVT terms.

Thanks everyone for this helpful thread.

Doug

I really like RYV too and it was my first rock singing method, but I always found it too hard for me. I usually ended up with an irritated throat and a lot of frustration. The only exercise I was able to do was the falsetto slide! not for the dummy self-teaching singer I guess.