Nasally Vocal Sound
OldBluesman
solve this problem? The vocals are on a seperate track.
"Don't gimme' no grass and call it greens"
OldBluesman
Don Pearce
Jay Kahrs
>I
>solve this problem? The vocals are on a seperate track.
It depends. Usually it's taken care of through mic selection. Dealing with it
after it's been recorded is much tougher.
---
-Jay Kahrs
Owner - Chief Engineer
Mad Moose Recording Inc.
Morris Plains, NJ
http://www.madmooserecording.com
- - - - - - - - - - - - -
Come visit me here --> http://www.gearslutz.com
Thomas Bishop
news:20021002014826...@mb-ca.aol.com...
> Made some very good recordings of my band but the vocals sound nasal. How
do I
> solve this problem? The vocals are on a seperate track.
I used to believe that EQ and some effects would change the sound of a
person's voice. This was back when I first started in live sound at my
church. Believe me, there are a lot of nasally vocalists in a church. Then
I became experienced and more knowledgeable, and realized that would you put
in a mic is what you get out of it. I'm afraid Don is correct. If you want
to change the sound of the vocalist, get a new vocalist.
I just noticed that this is your band. Are you the nasal vocalist? Maybe
some people here can give you tips on how to not sound nasally. If you're
not the vocalist, pass it along (gently) to him/her.
Don Pearce
The trick for not singing nasally is actually quite easy - but less so
for an American than a Brit. You must sing with an open glottis so
that all the sound is not forced through the nasal resonators.
The trick is to force a yawn and remember what was happening to the
back of the tongue while yawning - then reproduce it for singing. The
back of the tongue must be lowered away from the roof of the mouth.
Not only does the nasal tone disappear, but the vocal power doubles
for the same effort. Well worth the practice.
~ rob ~
do I
> solve this problem? The vocals are on a seperate track.
This help?
12k Air
8-10 k Upper Mids, Edge
5-7 k Articulation Zone
1.6 - 4K Hurtin' Zone
500-1.6 Mids
200-450 Lower Mid, Warmth, Mud Zone, only one lives here, commonly cut a lot
200 Moo Zone
100 Pop Zone, Warmth
50 Thud Zone
~ rj ~
~ rob ~
do I
> solve this problem? The vocals are on a seperate track.
Also:
The Art of Equalization - by Ethan Winer
(This article first appeared in the August 1979 issue of Popular Electronics
magazine.)
A growing number of audio enthusiasts are using equalizers to adjust their
stereo system's frequency response, whether to compensate for room acoustics
or for creative recording purposes. An equalizer is a device that allows you
to adjust the frequency response of an audio signal, and even conventional
bass and treble controls qualify as equalizers. More often, however, the
term implies equipment that is more complex and sophisticated, such as that
used by a mixing engineer. Let's look at some of the reasons equalization
(EQ) is useful and how its implementation has developed into a high art.
Standard bass and treble tone controls are broadband devices that have the
greatest effect at the frequency extremes--that is, the highest highs and
the lowest lows. While this is fine for touching up the response in your car
stereo, it offers little help in correcting narrow-band colorations, which
often are quite disturbing. For example, a peak in the response of an audio
system in the middle-treble region can produce a shrill or scratchy quality
that a normal treble control cannot effectively tame. Turning down the
treble enough to eliminate the shrillness kills too much of the highest
treble, robbing music of clarity and sparkle. Similarly, using a bass
control to correct tubbiness or muddy bass response also falls short of
success. Turning the control down to relieve such mid-bass exaggeration
would simply remove the deepest frequencies so important to life-like
reproduction, while perhaps still allowing some muddiness to persist. There
has to be a better way--and there is.
Enter the Graphic Equalizer. The graphic equalizer has become very popular
in recent years. It is called graphic because, as the front-panel sliders
are adjusted, their positions give an approximate display of the resultant
frequency response. These devices divide the audible spectrum into five or
more frequency bands, and allow adjustments to each band via its own
boost/cut control. Instead of broad adjustments of treble, bass, and maybe
the midrange (sometimes called presence), we now have independent control
over the low bass, mid-bass, high bass, low midrange, and so forth. If we
attack that shrill mid-treble emphasis with an octave-band graphic
equalizer, we should be able to correct for only the troublesome peak.
We'll have to settle for "more or less" because it is unlikely that any
response anomaly will correspond exactly to the frequencies available on
even a ten-band device. Therefore, many professional sound contractors,
recording studios, and audio enthusiasts seeking precise results use the
even greater resolution afforded by 1/3-octave equalization. The 1/3-octave
graphics usually have 27 bands and can, when teamed up with the proper
measuring equipment, be used to make just about any high-quality speaker
system flat to within a dB or two over much of the audible range. But
there's much more to EQ than simply correcting less than ideal loudspeakers
and listening rooms.
EQ IN THE STUDIO
Now, let's look at the professional recording studio with its abundant
knobs, lights, and buttons. This is where the multiple original tracks are
adjusted in level and equalized before being mixed together to comprise the
final two-track product. The key phrase is "before being mixed." Whereas the
home listener can alter the program only in its entirety, the recording
engineer can--and must--equalize sounds picked up by each microphone
separately. The tool of choice for this application is yet another equalizer
referred to by many as the console type. Virtually all professional mixing
consoles use this sort of device, with one available for each mike or line
input. Additional equalizers are often devoted to echo and reverb lines to
tailor the tone of those devices. A typical front panel for a console
equalizer (Figure 1) shows that we're back to the bass-mid-treble format.
But there are no less than five different frequency choices for treble,
eight for midrange, and another five for bass. In addition, a three-position
low-cut filter is provided, as is an in/out switch for instant comparison of
Before and After. Here we have a device that can control fifteen different
frequency ranges and be made small enough to fit in quantity into a single
mixing board. (A large console will have some thirty or more of these, so
size is an important factor.) Though all fifteen frequencies cannot be
adjusted simultaneously as with the graphic, this rarely is needed in a
"one-for-each-mike" situation. Besides, you can patch a graphic EQ into the
signal path when you absolutely have to.
The last controls, the Peak/Shelf switches, change the basic shape of the
response curve. This is shown in Figure 2, where in both cases treble
frequency has been set to 3.2 KHz. and 12dB of boost is applied. The upper
curve represents the switch in the Peak position while the lower curve shows
a Shelf. Notice that, while the treble peak affects mainly the specified
frequency, there is still some influence on nearby frequencies, whether
boosting or cutting. In the Shelf position, the boost or cut reaches its
maximum [or more commonly, is 3 dB. shy of the maximum] at that frequency
and remains there for all higher frequencies. The same principle applies to
the bass control. The boost or cut reaches maximum at the named frequency
but instead continues downward thereafter. The midrange has no shelf
capability, but the more expensive recording consoles generally have a
second, additional midrange control for added flexibility. Figure 3 shows
bass shelf cuts at four different frequencies. Figure 4 illustrates the
effect of varying the bandwidth of a midrange dip. Bandwidth? Well, now
we're talking about the parametric equalizer, the most recent addition to
the EQ machine family.
PARAMETRIC POWER
In a sense, the parametric equalizer is the most powerful of the equalizer
types, allowing continuous adjustment of all equalization parameters (hence
the name). It is structured similarly to the console equalizer, but there
are differences worth elaborating. First, and probably most important, all
controls of a parametric are continuously adjustable. Potentiometers, rather
than discrete, switch-related resistors, are employed as the tuning
elements, allowing a choice of virtually any center frequency. Boost and cut
controls are also continuous and frequently offer a range of 20 dB, more
than is characteristic of other equalizer types.
Another important difference is the inclusion of a bandwidth control. It was
explained previously that when boosting or cutting a frequency, the effect
spills over to adjacent frequencies. How far away from the indicated center
this influence extends is determined by the setting of the bandwidth
control. When set to Narrow, only a small range of frequencies are
influenced. This is particularly useful for applications such as removing
extraneous ringing and false tones from a drum, but without changing the
basic sound character. On the other side of the coin, this narrow-band
setting can be used to emphasize a single tone and can often effectively
"purify" a muddy-sounding tom tom by boosting the fundamental pitch. Of
course, this is not a substitute for proper tuning of the drums, but when
all else fails... Except when dealing with drums and perhaps some tuned
percussion instruments like triangles or cowbells, narrow-bandwidth boosts
should usually be avoided because unpleasant resonances or other bad effects
may be revealed when the mix is heard on different speakers. In fact, most
recording studios have alternate speaker systems available for making
instant comparisons.
Broad-bandwidth settings accentuate a larger range of frequencies, which is
often more natural sounding than narrow bandwidths. Parametric equalizers
are inherently peaking rather than shelving devices, but a wide setting can
reasonably approximate a shelf. Do not confuse peaking with boosting,
though. Peaking refers only to the shape of the curve, not to whether it is
being boosted or attenuated
All this newfound versatility, however, is not without some potential
drawbacks. Probably the most obvious is the lack of precise repeatability.
Since the operating controls are continuously variable, it may be difficult
to recreate settings exactly to perhaps undo something you later don't like.
Another factor is noise. Parametric equalizer designs generally use more op
amps per frequency band than do graphic and console types. This means that
cumulative noise can be more of a problem, especially when large amounts of
boost are used. Distortion can build up in a similar fashion, though the
latest high-slew rate, low-noise FET input op amps are bringing both of
these factors under better control. Still, most commercially available units
have a switch to bypass each band or section when it's not needed.
While studios have not unanimously traded in all their old equalizers for
parametrics, many have added at least one or two. And some of the newer
mixing boards are showing up with equalizers having a sweepable midrange
band or a two-position switch for sharp or broad peak shape selection. So a
few of the conveniences are added without having to go to a full parametric
design. Now that we've looked at the different types of devices and know how
they operate, how can we use EQ to best advantage? When and how would a
professional recording engineer use it? Well, first we should note that
equalization can be used in two basic ways; as a tool and for personal
taste.
EQ AS A TOOL
If you reflect on the task of a recording engineer, the idea that he or she
is going to run into problems should not seem surprising. The difficulties
encountered may lie in the areas of instrumental balances, equipment
overload, signal-to-noise ratio, and frequency response, to name a few
possibilities. When the problem can be traced to frequency response--and
quite a few can--the equalizer becomes an extremely valuable tool.
For example, one problem that occurs regularly is caused by proximity
effect, a bass boost that occurs when a directional microphone is placed
close to the sound source. Here, the low-cut filter would be your best bet.
First, it will attenuate the excessive low-frequency signal before it enters
the rest of the EQ circuitry, minimizing the chance of overload; second, it
will leave the bass control free for other uses if needed. (If the mike
offers a switchable low-cut filter, use that to keep the unwanted
frequencies from getting into the preamp in the first place, for even more
overload protection.)
Another proper occasion to use the low-cut filter is when recording vocals
close-up. Not only to reduce the proximity effect just mentioned, but also
to minimize popping Ps, which contain a lot of low-frequency energy. Rumble
and low-frequency mud can enter your recordings from extraneous vibrations
such as walking on non-concrete floors, air conditioners, and the like.
Treble is often accentuated to increase clarity or to enhance the presence
of a vocal or string part that might otherwise be lost in the mix. Horns,
cymbals, acoustic guitars and many other instruments can also be greatly
enhanced in this way, but the engineer must know where the formants (the
most important characteristic frequencies for the various instruments) lie.
Boosting high treble on an instrument with little output in that region will
do nothing but add hiss. In fact, when dealing with such an instrument, it
is often possible to make a substantial improvement in the signal-to-noise
ratio by carefully reducing the unnecessary high-frequency bandwidth with a
treble control on each channel for frequencies beyond the range of interest.
This is most effective when done during mixdown, as tape hiss will also be
reduced. For this same reason, when treble boost is employed it is usually
best applied before the tape recorder.
EQ can also help to correct for poor room acoustics. Recording live, even
the most accurate mike may not capture that terrific sound you hear when you
stand right next to the instrument.
Close-miking may help, but in many cases, this is impractical since many
instruments do not radiate sound from a single point source. Consider a
grand piano, string bass, xylophone, or gong. All of these project sound
from a large surface area, leaving no ideal single mike position that is
close to all parts of the source. Such large instruments require a more
distant microphone placement if a well-balanced pickup is to be had.
Unfortunately, as the distance between source and mike increases, the
acoustics of the room begin to affect the sound. This isn't always bad--a
good room often adds a warmth and character unobtainable in any other
manner. But when a close-up sound with lots of presence is desired,
equalization in the form of treble boost or midrange cut can often do the
trick.
SEASONING TO TASTE
While no one yet has been able to define what sounds good and what doesn't,
recording engineers have developed various techniques for emphasizing what
they consider to be the more pleasant qualities of musical sounds. In fact,
most engineers pride themselves on getting their own sound. This is an area
of taste, so naturally there are no hard, fast rules to apply. Some good
starting points can be established, though, as follows. Generally speaking,
you would boost treble for clarity or presence (the midrange can affect this
too), and bass for fullness or punch. Sometimes it seems that no matter how
much top or bottom you add, something is still not right. Often the real
culprit is one or more unpleasant resonances caused, as mentioned earlier,
by either microphone characteristics or placement, or even by bad qualities
within the instrument itself, especially if it is out of adjustment or of
low quality. Eliminating these midrange resonances may improve the sound and
minimize a need to boost highs and/or lows.
To find these magic EQ settings, start by turning off all but the principal
microphone that is picking up the instrument you're working with. If it's
the snare drum, for example, shut off the tom and kick mikes. They'll
interact later anyway, but the less you need to concern yourself with now,
the better. Next, try boosting some different midrange frequencies, adding
at least 10 or 15 dB, to make the changes obvious. Where you start naturally
depends on the instrument. Since physical resonances of instruments usually
fall between, say, 100 Hz. and 1 or 2 KHz., these frequencies are likely
starting points. After determining which one sounds the worst, return to the
flat setting momentarily to allow your ears to readjust, and then cut the
chosen frequency in small steps until the optimum improvement is reached.
The same general plan can work for boosting, although then you'd be looking
for frequencies that make the sound better when boosted instead of worse.
When adding treble or bass, be sure the controls are doing what you expect
them to. If you don't obtain an appreciable improvement, move on to a
different frequency. Remember, a lot of boost at the extreme low end can
route excessive infrasonic energy to the loudspeakers, which could damage
them. Similarly, too much ultrasonic content can damage tweeters and
overload the tape deck. Even with VU meter indicators in the black, safety
is not guaranteed: the limited frequency response of most meters sometimes
prevents them from giving a true picture. Also, VU meters tend to miss sharp
transients from drums and other percussion instruments; the pointer simply
cannot move fast enough. Pre-emphasis (a form of treble boost) within the
tape deck can also aggravate the situation, so be particularly careful at
the slower tape speeds.
The chart attached lists some common instruments with frequencies at which
boost or cut can be effectively applied to cure various problems or obtain
certain effects. Indicated frequencies are necessarily approximate, as no
two instruments sound exactly alike. The Comments column gives cautions or
observations based on experience. They should be taken as guidelines rather
than prescriptions, because every situation is different and every recordist
has his own sonic goals. A few general hints may contribute to the effective
use of equalization.
(1) Your memory is shorter than you think; return to a flat setting now and
then to remind yourself where you began.
(2) Make side-by-side comparisons against commercial releases of similar
types of music; this will help you in judging overall blend.
(3) You can tailor the sound of an instrument only so far without losing its
identity; every instrument can't be full, deep, bright, sparkly, etc. all at
once. Leave some room for contrast.
(4) Take a break once in a while. Critical listening tends to numb one's
senses after a while, especially if you listen at high volume levels. Sounds
may appear very different to you the next morning.
(5) Don't be afraid to experiment. If you can't find just what you want with
equalization, try moving the mike a little; if that doesn't work, move the
instrument. But, most of all, keep trying.
Common Frequencies For Equalization
Instrument Cutting Boosting Comments
Human voice Scratchy at 2 KHz. Nasal at 1 KHz. Popping Ps below 80 Hz. Hot
at 8 KHz. Clarity above 3 KHz. Body at 200-400 Hz. Aim for a thinner sound
when blending many voices, especially if the backing track is full.
Piano Tinny at 1-2 KHz. Boomy at 300 Hz. Presence at 5 KHz. Bottom at 100
Hz. Don't add too much bottom when mixing with a full rhythm section.
Electric Guitar Muddy below 80 Hz. Clarity at 3 KHz. Bottom at 125 Hz.
Acoustic Guitar Tinny at 2-3 KHz. Boomy at 200 Hz. Sparkle above 5 KHz. Full
at 125 Hz.
Electric Bass Thin at 1 KHz. Boomy at 125 Hz. Growl at 600 Hz. Bottom below
80 Hz. Sound varies greatly depending on the type of bass and brand of
strings used.
String Bass Hollow at 600 Hz. Boomy at 200 Hz. Slap at 2-5 KHz. Bottom below
125 Hz.
Snare Drum Annoying at 1 KHz. Crisp above 2 KHz. Full at 150-200 Hz. Deep at
80 Hz. Also try adjusting the tightness of the snare wires.
Kick Drum Floppy at 600 Hz. Boomy below 80 Hz. Slap at 2-5 KHz. Bottom at
60-125 Hz. For most pop music, remove the front head, then put a heavy
blanket inside resting against the front head.
Toms Boomy at 300 Hz. Slap at 2-5 KHz. Bottom at 80- 200 Hz. Tuning and
adjusting the head tension makes a huge difference too!
Cymbals, bells, tambourines, etc. Annoying at 1 KHz. Sparkle above 5 KHz.
[Analog only:] Record these instruments at conservative levels, especially
at slower tape speeds.
Horns and Strings Scratchy at 3 KHz. Honky at 1 KHz. Muddy below 120 Hz. Hot
at 8-12 KHz. Clarity above 2 KHz. Strings are lush at 400-600 Hz.
Entire contents Copyright © 1979-1999 by Ethan Winer. All rights reserved.
Arny Krueger
> Made some very good recordings of my band but the vocals sound
nasal. How do I
> solve this problem? The vocals are on a seperate track.
Attenuating or boosting the upper midrange ( say, 1 KHz and up) can
decrease or increase some of the nasality of recorded sound. However,
nasal sound is more than just a frequency response thing, and so
retraining the singer or choosing a different singer is the only
total cure for this problem.
You might want to look at the paragraph titled "Nasals" at
http://www.daimi.au.dk/~bek/thesis_html/node30.html for some
information about where nasality comes from.
NeilH011
>for an American than a Brit.
Now that's an interesting statement... why is that? I'm trying to imagine some
dialect or accent-related sounds that might make this the case, but I can't.
My attempt at Monty Python impressions notwithstanding.
NeilH
Don Pearce
The American (OK, I'm generalising) accent is much more nasal than the
British.
In health-conscious England, we like to keep our vowels open.
Carey Carlan
>
> >The trick for not singing nasally is actually quite easy - but less so
> >for an American than a Brit.
>
> Now that's an interesting statement... why is that? I'm trying to imagine some
> dialect or accent-related sounds that might make this the case, but I can't.
Jim Nabors?
Scott Dorsey
>"OldBluesman" <sax5...@aol.com> wrote in message
>news:20021002014826...@mb-ca.aol.com...
>> Made some very good recordings of my band but the vocals sound nasal. How
>do I
>> solve this problem? The vocals are on a seperate track.
>
>I used to believe that EQ and some effects would change the sound of a
>person's voice. This was back when I first started in live sound at my
>church. Believe me, there are a lot of nasally vocalists in a church. Then
>I became experienced and more knowledgeable, and realized that would you put
>in a mic is what you get out of it. I'm afraid Don is correct. If you want
>to change the sound of the vocalist, get a new vocalist.
This is generally true, but there is some tinkering that you can do with
a nasal sound. For example, you can try a Beyer M-500 which has a huge
honking presence peak that does seem to kill a lot of the nasality. You
can also get the room kind of humid and have the singer drink some tea.
Some singers get very nasal when they are singing downward, and so pulling
the microphone up and making them crane their neck up a bit can help their
tone a lot.
>I just noticed that this is your band. Are you the nasal vocalist? Maybe
>some people here can give you tips on how to not sound nasally. If you're
>not the vocalist, pass it along (gently) to him/her.
I recommend a voice coach. I have seen good voice coaching do amazing
things.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
Šon Bailey
do I
> solve this problem? The vocals are on a seperate track.
>
A "breathe-right" strip?
db
Patric D'Eimon
time to realize that.
Also it took a long time to realize that a persons voice is a persons voice.
It doesn't matter if it is nasal. If it tells the story and communicates the
feeling and emotion of the song then get your notions of good and bad out of
the way. There is not a right or wrong tone of voice under any circumstances.
There is only unfair judgments by other people concerning other folks
performances.
The difference between Waylon Jennings and Randy Travis is Waylon is way down
in the chest and Randy is up in his face but they both tell terrific stories
when they sing. It is unfair to compare them.
If you have a singer who sings, in your opinion, nasal then learn to love it
and help them sing better and help them do the more important job of
communicating the music rather than fitting some preconceived notion of what is
good or bad, right or wrong. If it is unacceptable to you then get a new
singer. It is unacceptable to try to get a singer to sing with a voice they
don't have or sing like someone they are not. That what I think...Patric
Paul Rubin
> If you have a singer who sings, in your opinion, nasal then learn to
> love it and help them sing better and help them do the more
> important job of communicating the music rather than fitting some
> preconceived notion of what is good or bad, right or wrong. If it
> is unacceptable to you then get a new singer. It is unacceptable to
> try to get a singer to sing with a voice they don't have or sing
> like someone they are not. That what I think...Patric
Voice-coach-to-the-stars Roger Love wrote a bit about overly nasal
tone in his book "Set Your Voice Free". He says it can be changed:
Once your voice becomes nasal, for whatever reason, it may get stuck
in that nasal place. Why? One prominent reason is "sound memory."
Your brain remembers what you sound like every day, and it's
constantly reassessing what the qualities of "you" are. It hears
the sounds you make and tries to duplicate them the next time you
speak.
Say you spend a couple of weeks with a cold. The brain begins to
associate that plugged-up sound with you and subtly prods you to hold
on to that sound--even when you can breathe again. The cold ends but
your voice stays nasal. Your brain is misguidedly telling you that
this is what you sounded like yesterday, so this is what you should
sound like today.
Fortunately, you can use the same sound memory to help lead you out of
the problem. Practicing new ways of making sounds not only teaches
you how to do it--it also tells the brain, repeatedly, this is how I
sound. This is the voice I want, and when I get off track, this is
the way to get back.
The book is pretty interesting, and includes a CD with demonstrations
and exercises.
Mark Stebbeds
>Made some very good recordings of my band but the vocals sound nasal.
Is Nelly Furtato (or whatever her name is) in your band?
Justin Ulysses Morse
<donald...@pearce.uk.com> wrote:
> The American (OK, I'm generalising) accent is much more nasal than the
> British.
At least we know how to pronounce the letter R.
> In health-conscious England, we like to keep our bowels open.
Interesting.
ulysses
Don Pearce
<uly...@rollmusic.com> wrote:
>In article <8tqlpu8q7vua2u8tq...@4ax.com>, Don Pearce
><donald...@pearce.uk.com> wrote:
>
>
>> The American (OK, I'm generalising) accent is much more nasal than the
>> British.
>
>
>At least we know how to pronounce the letter R.
>
In England, the fully enunciated "R" is the mark of a country boy far
from the big city.
>
>> In health-conscious England, we like to keep our bowels open.
>
>
>Interesting.
>
>
>
>ulysses
Entropy Music
> The American (OK, I'm generalising) accent is much more nasal than the
> British.
> In health-conscious England, we like to keep our vowels open.
>
will pass.
These don't help England onto the front covers of various fine foods
magazines. Even with healthy food, people there still have to do something
about their hair !!!
Don Pearce
Pots and kettles.
Have you seen your blue-rinsed senators? Have you seen all those
ridiculous Barbie-doll hairstyles your TV anchorwomen wear? Have you
seen Emo Phillips? Have you seen Bill Clinton?
And as for fine food, London is the place to come in Europe if you
want to eat the best food from just about any cuisine in the world
As for all that crap food you mentioned - you are dead right, of
course, but mad cow disease was not strictly a UK phenomenon - we just
had different reporting methods that showed it up.
Bob Allain
wrote:
That was just his Gomer Pyle character stage voice - You obviously
have never heard Mr Nabors sing - he has a beautiful trained voice,
with nary ( nares ) a whine I might add.
Bob
Carey Carlan
Jim Nabors' "Gomer Pyle" voice is his real speaking voice.
Jim Nabors' singing voice is just as natural.
I have heard him sing and offered him as an example of both sides of Neil's
argument.
NeilH011
>> >> >for an American than a Brit.
>> >>
>> >> Now that's an interesting statement... why is that? I'm trying to
>imagine some
>> >> dialect or accent-related sounds that might make this the case, but I
>can't.
>> >
>> >Jim Nabors?
>>
>> That was just his Gomer Pyle character stage voice - You obviously
>> have never heard Mr Nabors sing - he has a beautiful trained voice,
>> with nary ( nares ) a whine I might add.
>>
>> Bob
>
>Jim Nabors' "Gomer Pyle" voice is his real speaking voice.
>Jim Nabors' singing voice is just as natural.
>
>I have heard him sing and offered him as an example of both sides of Neil's
>argument.
Actually, for the record, that wasn't my argument... I had just asked the
question right below the statement about Brits & Amercian having varying
degress of ease or difficulty n avoiding a nasal singing tone.
NeilH