Isabelle (I think) wrote:
<<But micophones necessarily teach students
>to back off of ring and instead emphasize fullness,
>warmth, expressive coloring, tone manipulation that
>uses inadequate breath control -- recording tricks, in
>short. But micophones necessarily teach students
>to back off of ring and instead emphasize fullness,
>warmth, expressive coloring, tone manipulation that
>uses inadequate breath control -- recording tricks, in
>short. >>
and Lloyd wrote:
<< Any kind of
> miking a singer tends to encourage them to sing to the mike which
> means, eventually, reducing the vocal "ring" (singer's formant)
> which has, or should be, so carefully taught from the beginning of
> singing training. >>
This thread came out of discussion about how some opera companies allegedly
mike their singers, despite the fact that it doesn't seem to be noticable.
I think there is a difference in the type of miking done in broadway shows,
and what is being done in opera houses, and in BYU, for that matter. I
could be wrong, but if the miking is done as often as has been said here,
and it isn't that noticable, then perhaps it is not changing the way the
singers are singing, but only allowing more singers access to the stage.
That is not necessarily a good thing, in my opinion, but it is not
necessarily the end of classical singing.
My two cents,
David Grogan
East Texas Baptist University
(where we have a stage SO small, you don't need ring, and you can't fit an
orchestra, anyway!)
Marshall, Texas
|
|  |
