Vocalist.org archive


Date sent: Fri, 10 Dec 1999 12:16:00 EST
Subject: Re: Sensations
To: vocalist
Send reply to: VOCALIST <vocalist>

In a message dated 12/10/99 9:44:21 AM Central Standard Time,
les.taylor-at-gulfaero.com writes:

<< Names for things get in the way. We each have idiosyncracies in our
personal
languages - the language we use inside our heads when we are thinking - that
don't
quite match what other people think. "Head voice" is a tough thing to
consceive
of
because there is no general agreement on what it is. The name was derived
from
someone's subjective notion of feeling. It means so many different things to
so
many
different people that it is useless in any practical sense. I'd suggest not
getting too
hung up on the word and go with offering them techniques to make an improved
sound. When they succeed, ask them to identify what they are feeling to
"set" it
in
their mind, using its own language.

Warmest regards,
Les >>


Dear Les:

I agree up to a point. Not everything (especially language) is relative. If
we did not have some universal agreement on what words represent, we couldn't
communicate. In fact, if an individual's language on a conceptual level is
disturbed, he/she has a language disorder usually associated with dementia.
For example, a chair is a chair. Now, granted that chair may mean something
else to you than me, in that you may think it's ugly and I find it an
attractive chair. That is the essence of subjective truth, but the truth is
we still agree it is a chair.

Words/labels help clarify and communicate concepts. While the sensations
associated with head voice (for example) will vary from person to person (and
you are correct in saying you can't specifically describe another's
sensations) most people will feel sensations in the skull if they correctly
connect into that production. The term head voice (if clearly explained by
the teacher and understood by the student) then gives them a much more
efficient way to communicate the concept of that production. The word is a
way of communicating the technique. Without it would always be stumbling to
define the concept. It would be like having to describe the concept of a
donut every time you ordered one, instead of just saying I want a donut.
Imagine, having to describe hungry every time you felt it (a sensation)
instead of just saying it; "I'm hungry." With that I'll leave, I have a
vague sense of emptiness in my stomach which leads me to believe I may need
to put something in my mouth, chew, swallow and digest.

Randy Buescher