In a message dated 7/16/2001 12:51:00 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
w.ritzerfeld@c... writes:
w.ritzerfeld@c... writes:
<<
I must agree that even if we knew e x a c t l y what's going on
during singing (and obviously we still don't know everything) we
would still have the problem of figuring out how to teach ourselves
and our pupils how our/their sensations relate to what's going on.
I'm not a voice teacher yet, but this aspect seems to me
part of the fun of being a voice teacher :). >>
wim,
additionally, there are students who don't care how or why it works, they
just want to know how to make it work (a bit like the people who don't care
about how fuel injection works as long as they can find the steering wheel).
of course, there are students who are interested in how things work and are
not satisfied with knowing only how to work it. it would be one thing if
these people made more improvement and sang better than the 'just show me
how' crowd but, a lot of the time the 'just show me' crowd do better than
those who are willing to be more analytical.
as i have had some luck in getting the 'just show me' crowd to think a
little more about what they are doing (at least enough as to keep them from
doing something really stupid), i have also had luck in getting the
analytical crowd to put aside their charts and textbooks and become a little
more instinctual and even playful about what they are doing.
i don't need to argue the value of vocal science to this group (certainly
not those involved in this discussion) but, i can't help feeling that there
is a missing link between the science and its application. perhaps those
who are at the edge of vocal science are too busy heading in the other
direction (as they should be, i suppose).
i have found limited success using spectrography (i use gram50). with
the people i have actually gotten to use it for more than five minutes, the
result has been more of a negative (though, a necessary negative) as they
were shown just how far off from their goal they were. unfortunately,
instead of making them desperate to remedy the situation, it tends to make
them want to hide their heads in the sand (perhaps some people need to fool
themselves until they see a certain level of hope before they are willing to
grab the bull by the tail and face the situation).
my own personal use of spectrography has not been all that big of a deal
either. in my 'normal' singing, it hasn't really shown me anything unusual.
certainly, i am still far more concerned with how it sounds and how to get
the sounds i want. spectrography did, however, show me some interesting
things in the novelty area. it confirmed my experiments with tuvan throat
singing (it also demonstrated that it is not the singing of different pitches
but, the isolation of the fundamental and a vowel formant with the
elimination of most of the rest of the sound). it also demonstrated that
the boston accent has plenty of 'singer's formant' in it (dissuading my
assumption that sensation in the zygomatic arch was a necessary accompinament
for that formant).
for now, what is still the most valuable is 'what sound are you trying to
make and, are you sure you can't already make it?'. for example, it is
amazing to me how much closer people who don't like opera can come to a truly
operatic sound just by making fun of it than those for whom opera is some
kind of deity (this also works with other forms of music; comedians are often
better heavy metal singers than those who yearn to be rock stars). as long
as someone thinks singing is magic, they will have a lot harder time doing it
than if they think it is just some cheap trick.
mike
|
