Vocalist.org archive


From:  "Caio Rossi" <rossicaio@h...>
Date:  Thu Apr 4, 2002  12:46 pm
Subject:  how do you define 'head voice'? + TRILLED "R"

Mike:>yes, i was pointing out the roundness of the earth as, i wasn't sure,
from your previous post, we were in agreement (you're not thinking of a
disc, are you?).<

No... BTW, neither has ever the Church or the Bible believed that. Medieval
cathedrals already represented Jesus Christ holding a globe in his hand. So
maybe not every supposedly educated information is to be taken seriously.

>yes, lots of voice teachers (and tv psychics) try to use nasals to try to
'trigger' head voice. does it trigger head voice? no. can it
accidently precede the stumbling into head voice? sure.<

That has a name: prejudice! You're adapting reality to your expectations. As
I said, people have used that for ages, there's a cause and effect relation
there, and you're assuming it's mere accident.

Doctors used to say, based upon "science", that fat IS unquestionably bad to
one's health. Then, they found out that people on a Greek island practically
breathe in olive oil but have great health. Now it's considered the
healthiest diet on Earth. After FACTS like those, they started saying that
ANIMAL fat only is harmful. There's always someone to believe their guesses.

I should even have added a P.S. note to my post on the "RRRRRR" thread:
although the trilled "R" is widely used in my native language, I could only
hold it for long, as I've already mentioned here, not by doing the exercises
prescribed by my speech therapist, but by singing along a Portuguese singer,
as their "R" are REALLY trilled. There was absolutely no difference between
the exercises I tried to do and my sing-along, AS FAR AS ANATOMY IS
CONCERNED. The mere description of the movements involved in trilling an "R"
DOES NOT EXPLAIN WHY THOSE EXERCISES WERE NOT EFFECTIVE.

Maybe he/she will get it only after going to a Reichian therapist and having
a cathartic muscle releasing experience. Or after a threesome!! Or who knows
what! We know how the intricate muscular chains and emotions are related to
voice production, but as they ( mostly emotions ) are variable that can't be
easily controlled, scientifically-educated singing teachers do not take them
into consideration. Why do you think Alexander technique COULD ONLY BE
DEVELOPED by an artist, not a scientist?

When I studied cognitive science in college I read Howard Gardner's classic
book on the subject and right in the introduction you could read something
like this: "Although we know emotions are intrinsically related with
cognition, that variable cannot be easily controlled. Regardless of that,
we're trying to deal with 'pure cognition' in our models of the mind first,
but efforts shall be made to integrate emotions in the process". That means:
WE'RE LYING TO OURSELVES ABOUT OUR REALITY, OTHERWISE WE WON'T HAVE ANY
MODELS. WHEN THAT LIE CANNOT BE SUPPORTED ANYMORE, THEN WE'LL START
CONSIDERING WHAT WE KNOW REALITY REALLY IS.

That's what you're doing! That's what most "well-trained" singing teachers
do. Although acting involves mechanical training, I've never seen an acting
teacher putting so much emphasis on that. That's PART of their training, not
its foundation. That's because no physicians have imposed their simplistic
explanations on that area, but as a "voice science" has developed, a purely
physical description of the act of singing has gained the status of
"educated teaching".

If singing teachers were surgeons, most of them would be in prison. they
might have their successful students testifying in their favor, but that
wouldn't raise the dead. Not even my beloved uncle... sniff... sniff

Best wishes,

Caio






emusic.com