(no, i live in north carolina so, i don't even know it's snowing
somewhere!) anyway, every now and then i get struck with fascination by
some new technical idea only to wonder what the hell am i doing it for. my
latest fascination was with the copy of seth riggs 'singing for the stars' i
just got. aside from the seemingly endless list endorsements by a lot of
singers i can't stand, there are some interesting exercises that come with
the 'brochure'. however, after a few days of doing the exercises, i came to
the same conclusion i always come to when i get off on some technical bent-
"what the hell does this have to do with what i think singing is all about?"
in my thinking, singing is an extension of speech in that when we
express ourselves in speech, we are usually caught up in the point we are
trying to make or the story we are trying to tell. with that intent, our
voices go through all sorts of complicated color changes that are far sublter
than anything we could ever plan (the french word 'eclat' comes to mind).
(only liars have to worry about the tone of their voices.) we can't hear
ourselves as others hear us so, what's the point in the vanity of 'touching
up' our voices?
in order to bring this same phenomenon of expression to singing, there
are two things that have to be examined. singing uses a much wider range of
pitches than talking and because we are using specified pitches for specified
durations, more often than not, it takes longer to speak a word while singing
than it does while talking. maybe i should say that talking becomes moaning
when we sing.
i am always surprised at how my students react when i come back from one
of my technoid stupors. the moaning thing has so many different effects on
different people. i teach two sisters, both around forty. in one, it
turned her chicken-ass singing into strong singing that went from weak and
cowardly (but pretty, none the less) to strong and beautiful singing. in
the other sister, who is not chicken, it turned her 'clumpy' phrasing into a
nice legato. the next student turned his pressed singing into flowing
singing, the next turned his quiet, muffled (too much time in the
office)sound into more sound that didn't sound 'flat' (as he likes to put it.
he really means 'dull'). the last student had the hardest time with it
eventually saying 'i have trouble with emotion and singing but, i know if i
want to take it to the next step, it's something i have got to deal with.'
maybe. i explained to him that singing is like playing army not like being
in vietnam but, for awhile, he may not know the difference.
in short, i keep learning that singing is the exact expression of a
notion and that technique is just a trick to unstick the point. when a
fascination for technique replaces the intention of conveying an idea, it is
not technique, it is a joke!
mike
|
