Frankly, I'm always highly suspicious of any vocal pedagogical theory,
approach, etc. that has a label - particularly a label with initial
uppercase levels (e.g., Speech-Level Singing). The one exception, for me,
is "bel canto" (note lack of initial caps - I'm talking the pedagogical
approach, not the operatic era/style). ANd this is only because "bel
canto" pedagogy has been proven over and over and over for generations.
Yes, the "science" behind it has become somewhat better understood through
the decades: no teacher of bel canto these days would espouse the
"pancostal breathing" approach that was promoted in the late 19th Century
(although this approach was not taught universally - the English tended to
focus on spreading the back ribs, while the Germans taught low abdominal
breaths). But generally, the FOCUS of bel canto pedagogy is on technique
that, as practitioner William Shakespeare (the OTHER W.S.) put it, may
cause the singer to "tire the breath muscles, but experience no sense of
fatigue at the throat", and which - most importantly of all - considered
beauty of tone to be the core foundation of vocal artistry.
Given the wide variety of practitioners of bel canto pedagogy - from
Garcia pere and fils to Marchesi, Lamperti to William Earl Brown and
Shakespeare to Bispham, Julius Stockhausen, and Lehmann being the most
noteworthy in the 19th and early 20th Centuries - it is not surprising the
variety of different emphases, foci, and approaches, yet all have a common
core of commonly understood and accepted theories. One sees these also in
the writings of singers like Caruso and Tetrazzini, both bel canto singers
in technique.
The difference, however, between bel canto and some of the other "schools"
of pedagogy, is that bel canto DOES leave so much open to the
interpretation of the teacher, and also allows for its own evolution as
the understanding of the science of vocal pedagogy (and vocal physiology)
progress. Other "schools", by contrast, tend to grab onto one key idea or
approach to the exclusion of all others. These schools tend to be
inflexible, intolerant of dissenting views, and their practitioners tend
to be supiciously evangelical - as if the technical approach being
espoused was impossible to "sell" based on the evidence of its successful
practitioners. I am highly suspicious of any vocal pedagogical approach
that has to be preached like a new religion or hawked like a patent
medicine. I'm also highly suspicious of any vocal pedagogical approach
that cannot point to a large and varied population of "graduates" all of
whom can "sell" the approach merely by opening their mouths and singing.
The "bel canto school" can do this - and has been doing it for over two
centuries. I'm not sure "speech level singing", the "Buckingham technique"
or any other "school" can make the same claim.
Besides, we all know bel canto works. So if it ain't broke, why the heck
try to fix it?
KM
===
On Neil Shicoff - http://www.radix.net/~dalila/shicoff/shicoff.html
On yours truly - http://www.radix.net/~dalila/index.html
+-------------------------------------------------------+
| For what is your life? It is even a vapour, that |
| appeareth for a little time, and then vanisheth away. |
| - James 4:14 |
+-------------------------------------------------------+
|
