>
><< Mike I don't get that. If there was no point in touching up our voices,
> car salesmen, politicians and other con men would not succeed as well
> as they do!!! >>
>
>reg, as i was saying, only liars have to worry about the tones in their
>voices. i can only assume you include television evangelists in 'other con
>men'.
Of course, but also Presidents who invoke the trappings of religious zeal
while lacking the social heroism necessary to honestly address the needs
of ordinary people.
it doesn't have to be. taking the approach of 'now if it were i, i
>would probably say it like this' removes the need to pretend that one is the
>character leaving the actor to 'represent' the character rather than
>commiting an act of unnecessary delusion. and, in representing the
>character, an actor can become quite impassioned in the championing of that
>character's intentions.
Self delusion is a threat when playing any part. Camille in the Merry
Widow led me personally onto some very shaky ground just through
being too close to the part. ; (
>
> <<You say, in speech we color our phrases in order to communicate
> our message and you label anyone who does this, a liar and deceiver! : )>>
>
> no i don't. in speech we get caught up in what we are saying.
>sometimes we express ourselves when we wish we wouldn't. we can come across
>as nervous, impatient, depressed, etc. when we might wish to conceal those
>emotions. fake smiles, insincere good wishes, compliments to hated rivals,
>etc. usually ring false. the expert liar is the liar who manages to obscure
>the difference between fact and fiction which allows them the benefits of
>truthful expression.
Then you're an advocate of non-disclosure and manipulation huh?
So are most people as part of the communication process, it's just that
in a forthright person there is less of this, which does not make either
dishonest, merely that they harbor a desire to intimately interact with
the other person. Jokes aside, I saw some of this in your past president
and of course it made him vulnerable, as it does anyone who is brave
enough to risk it. Not the new guy!!
It's my opinion that the closer one succeeds with this, the more adept
we are at applying it to the interpretation of songs, such as lied:
but in the absence of an equally sensitive audience, it is lost. I'm afraid
that honest and forthright communications expect too much from
many audiences today. They tend to be hardened against what is
seen to be "foolishly open".
Let me reduce it to this then....
>. you must be speaking of a "pop" style where 'originality', is
>the term used to conceal an artistic refusal
> or inability of the performer, to adhere to the composer's
> intention. : )>>
I'm saying that the use of the word "original" to disguise
ineptitude is blatantly dishonest!
I repeat ...no restrictions mean there are no standards.
Check out your gun lobby for an example in general terms
and then look at the results and not to what they say.
> i was right, you have missed the point. as you may remember, the
>distinctions i make between speech and singing are; a wider range of pitches
>is used in singing and, where specific pitches are sustained for specific
>durations, it takes longer (generally) to say the words while singing than it
>does while speaking.
Surely you don't think for one moment that in speech the listener grabs
more than 10% of what is said!!!!! Most spoken messages are not
received in the form they're intended which is why body language is
so important. The persuasive technique far closer approximates the
singing one. Ask any well and truly seduced young lady. : )
> moaning is a lot closer to what opera singers do than what pop singers
>do.
Of course it's not! Listen to Frankie or Bing or any number of their
imitators. A clearly enunciated vowel surrounded by its consonants
is much closer to the "ideal" of effective communication and you find
that far more often in classical style. Not saying that there is not an
on-going effort to unconsciously destroy the standard to the benefit
of a few.
>until he left to become a Buddhist monk.
Now that's what I call obsessing with moaning. No disrespect.
Reg.
"One must have loved a woman of genius
to comprehend the happiness of loving a fool."
|
|  |
